Tom Harris: Then he will know that at weekends, wholly off-peak services are run so many fares are cheaper. I hope he will understand that it is simply impossible to maintain the safety of the infrastructure unless we close large sections of the railway to allow it to happen. Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration and that of many Members on both sides of the House, but I hope that people will understand that if we are to have a safe and efficient railway service there must be maintenance, which cannot be done while trains are running on the lines.

Anne Main: The east of England had accepted the need for one strategic rail freight interchange. Since that decision was taken, the Bexley and Shellhaven developments——two in the east of England—have been approved. Will the Secretary of State bear that in mind when the Planning Inspectorate's decision comes before her in respect of granting or not granting such a development in Radlett in my constituency? We do not need it accessed from our busy roads. We have more than sufficient capacity, given the two decisions that have been made since the application was made.

Andrew George: The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) wrote to hon. Members on 31 October last year, acknowledging that "for some time" First Great Western services had been "unsatisfactory". He said he would
	"continue to keep a close interest in performance...to ensure"
	that First Great Western lived up to its promises. Passengers have had to endure continued overcrowding, poor services and unreliability, only to be rewarded for their loyalty with an above-inflation price hike. Can the Under-Secretary not do anything to step in and hold back those ticket price rises until quality thresholds are met, and what will he do to put those matters right?

Jim Fitzpatrick: We are aware of this tragic accident, which occurred last summer. We extend our deepest sympathies to the parents and family of Finlay, who lost his life as a result of what happened. We want to make sure that when we introduce new regulations, they can be applied and they are appropriate. Introducing MOT-style tests for such trailers is a possibility that we have considered before, and it is a matter that we keep under review. There have several such accidents in recent months, and I will certainly consider the matter with officials in the Department to see whether we need to move on that.

Margaret Moran: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it a requirement for the providers of goods and services and the providers of specified facilities enabling the purchase of such goods and services to take reasonable steps, in certain circumstances, to establish the age of customers making such purchases remotely; and for connected purposes.
	In simple terms, my Bill would require online retailers and those who facilitate the sale of goods and services online to abide by the laws of the land in respect of age-restricted goods and services.
	In days of old, when knights were bold and I was young, and the internet had not been invented, retailers had a comparatively easy job when it came to the sale of age-restricted goods and services such as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, solvents and so on. If there was any doubt about a person's age, they could ask for identification and, if necessary, decline to sell the goods or services. The consequences of getting it wrong could be dire. A bookie or a landlord could be fined, lose their licence or worse; a cinema or nightclub could be closed down.
	The growth of the internet and e-commerce, however, has meant that the same goods and services can now be bought online, and we are increasingly a nation of online buyers. With that has come a loophole that urgently needs to be addressed—namely, that there are most often no checks online, thus enabling children to buy age-restricted goods. This is at a time when we are all rightly concerned about the increasing availability of knives and alcohol to under-age youngsters. The Bill would require online retailers and those who facilitate such purchases—for instance, via pre-payment cards—to take positive steps to ensure age compliance. We cannot have a wild west scenario whereby anything is sold to anyone and no one takes responsibility. Children can now get hold of some very disturbing items—things that they would never be able to buy if they walked into a shop. That has to stop.
	It is clear that very few online retailers have procedures or software in place to prevent the sale of age-restricted goods to children. Sadly, self-regulation is not working. I believe that online retailers caught selling alcohol, knives or pornography to under-age children should face a hefty fine or even imprisonment if they fail to put in place procedures to check the age of their customers. No one is seeking to hold back the tide of e-commerce, even if we could, or to place more onerous requirements on online retailers, or to prevent people from using pre-payment cards, but an increasing number of cases have exposed the ease with which children under 18 can buy alcohol, watch pornographic films, or worse.
	Only a small number of goods and services are subject to any kind of age restriction, but they are in sensitive areas where society and the law have said some limits need to be applied. They are there for a reason, but there is a real risk that the internet could make them redundant. Many online retailers simply ask customers to confirm their age by ticking a box and take no other measures to verify whether the person meets the age criteria. "Of course", cry the online retailers, "retailing on the internet relies on systems that are very highly automated and work at very high speeds with little direct human intervention." They are right to say that the life of the vendor is so much harder online nowadays because banks routinely provide legal minors, in some cases children as young as 11, with the sort of plastic cards—for example, Solo or Visa Electron cards—that can be used to make payments on the internet and are widely accepted on every kind of website. Many members of the public associate the logos of these cards with credit cards, and everybody thinks that credit cards are available only to legal adults, not least because contracts cannot be enforced against legal minors, other than for "necessities", which very few online sales are.
	These brands are becoming associated with a range of other financial products, particularly pre-paid, or stored value cards, which can be bought as gifts and given to people of any age, or even bought over the counter for cash. One company in particular sells cards that use these logos and it advertises them as being available for use by persons of any age. The cards are accepted anywhere the logos appear, which includes millions of websites. I understand that the financial services industry sees the development of these stored value cards as a major new market that will grow exponentially over the next few years. However, such cards can allow children to get to places on the internet or buy goods and services online that they would never be able to access in real life.
	We all know that children like to push the boundaries and, indeed, one online company survey found that of 300 18 to 30-year-olds, 57 per cent. admitted lying about their age to gain access to, or buy, age-restricted goods before their 18th birthday. Nobody compels anyone to sell age-restricted goods or services over the internet; they choose to do so. Therefore, unless companies can be sure they are selling goods legally, they should stop selling them online altogether.
	The evidence that children are obtaining age-restricted goods and services online is becoming compelling. For example, last summer  The People newspaper worked with a 14-year-old called Zach. He got a pre-paid card at a local store; he paid cash and walked out the door with it. The card retailers say that their cards can be sold only to people over the age of 18, but Zach had no trouble getting his—there was no check whatsoever—and since there is no law that says it is illegal to sell the cards to persons under the age of 18, one is bound to wonder how carefully many retailers monitor it. Using the card, Zach was able to order XXX porn videos from Amazon, and knives from Tesco that were delivered to his home where he signed for them personally. Oddbins delivered some Vodka to his house, and apparently William Hill let him bet £10 on a football match. Some other children in Glasgow were also able to get alcohol delivered to their door, to join online bingo sites and to get X-rated horror movies sent to them.
	Asking people simply to tick a box to confirm that they are a certain age is not acceptable in the internet age. The Gambling Act 2006, which came into force last September, specifically requires online gambling companies to implement an age verification service that is in no way dependent on the method of payment being used. In relation to gambling, the House has said it is not acceptable simply to ask people to confirm their age. We require companies to verify that their customers are over 18, for themselves, separately. We did that specifically and solely to protect children.
	There are technological solutions, and companies are providing online age and ID check solutions in order to screen minors One who contacted me is currently working with online gaming vendors. It says that it supports the introduction of an age verification mandate to online retailers selling age-restricted goods, and adds that
	"the online gaming industry has already proved that they can enable a instant customer age verification during the online transaction without incurring significant additional costs and without harming the customers experience".
	What is illegal in the real world is illegal in the virtual world. The evidence is clear that the laws restricting access to a limited number of goods and services on the basis of age are being circumvented online. That is a risk to our children and the community as a whole. The Bill would enable us to get rid of this loophole and provide the protection to our children that we intended to be there for them.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Margaret Moran, Ms Sally Keeble, Kali Mountford, Judy Mallaber, Barbara Keeley, Fiona Mactaggart, Ian Stewart, Martin Salter, Lynda Waltho and Linda Gilroy.

John Hutton: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. I do not regard his comments as criticism of the Government—in a modern democracy, it is good to consult. Consultation has strengthened, not undermined the Government's energy policies. It is not true that the Government have been inactive in introducing policies to tackle climate change and deal with the problems of energy security.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he had interrupted my speech—I do not think that, technically, I had started to make it. Let me carry on from where I had reached—a little after the second line.
	Changing the way in which we produce and use energy will have an important role to play in meeting targets that we have set ourselves. We must ensure that we have the widest possible range of cleaner, low-carbon energy sources and technologies. The Bill will help with that.
	Secondly, we must maintain the security of our energy supplies as the UK makes the transition from being a net exporter to a net importer of energy. The transition requires new forms of energy infrastructure in the UK. For example, the UK requires more gas storage by 2020. We need to increase our gas import capacity by between 15 and 30 per cent. and we must ensure that we support investment in such important infrastructure projects. Again, the Bill will make a positive contribution.
	Thirdly, beyond import and storage infrastructure, the UK needs investment in new generating capacity of between 30 GW to 35 GW in the next 12 years or so. We must create the right environment to encourage investment, which will not only maintain the UK's diverse energy mix, but—most important—make it increasingly low carbon. Again, the Bill tackles those concerns. A key part of delivering the new investment is giving the private sector confidence in our planning system. That is why we have introduced the Planning Bill, which will deliver a timelier and more efficient decision-making process for consenting to large-scale energy projects.
	The policies that we introduce now will determine over the long term the investment decisions that the energy markets make and the new technologies that they develop. They will also enable our successful transition to a truly low-carbon economy, while helping to ensure continued energy security. There is no single answer to the multi-faceted problems that we face. No single technology is capable of solving all our problems. However, the solutions to the challenges go hand in hand with each other.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. It is not like me to interrupt him so early in his speech, but how will he explain to the people of this country exactly why we need a balanced energy mix, as he has just outlined?

John Hutton: I certainly think that the Planning Bill will help. We must improve on the length of time it takes us to approve crucial national infrastructure projects, such as the Severn barrage—potentially. We simply cannot afford years and years of the sort of planning inquiries that we have endured recently. The science of climate change is changing rapidly and policy makers must respond to that. May I assure the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members whose constituencies could be affected if the project were given the go-ahead that it is important—this comes back to what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said—that the fullest possible consultation takes place? With the support of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and others affected by the project, I intend to convene a group of affected Members of Parliament, local authorities and others to ensure that the proper exchange of information takes place, so that we all know exactly what is happening and what progress is being made on the project.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his introduction to the Bill, but what he outlined is not so much a complete energy policy as a set of technical amendments to existing rules and laws. Many of them are important measures, but the House will view it as a missed opportunity to tackle the full range of energy challenges that the country faces. Legislatively, there are elements on emissions relating to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a Planning Bill that sets out a framework for infrastructure decisions, the Energy Bill that we are considering, which addresses a hotch-potch of issues such as gas storage, carbon capture, the renewables obligation and decommissioning, and a so-far elusive Bill on handling nuclear waste.
	In addition, tomorrow the European Union will publish a package of measures designed to reduce carbon emissions and increase energy efficiency across the region. It includes a commitment to establishing an ambitious renewables target of about 15 per cent., not just for electricity but for all energy. The Government's attempts to disguise their incoherence on renewables with targets set far ahead in a fantasy future are now unravelling.
	Even today, in an answer to a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), the Minister for Energy has watered down the Government's target of obtaining 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewables by 2010. He now says that the figure might be as low as 8 per cent. Now that the arithmetic is clear, we see that we have an almost insurmountable rock to climb. Given the way in which the Government have delayed for the past five years, the UK is not likely to meet the target by cleaning up; we will only meet it by buying our right to be dirty. That is like someone bribing a doctor for a sick note when they are too lazy to go to work.
	The challenges that confront the United Kingdom are twofold. First, for our own environmental integrity, and to secure even a hint of global leadership on the issue of tackling climate change, we must cut our carbon emissions. Secondly, we must ensure that while we move to a low-carbon economy, we do not compromise our security of supply.
	We must produce approximately 40 GW of power a year. We are likely to need more energy in future as our economy and population grow, yet over a third of our generating capacity will go out of service over the next 20 years. We therefore face two unpalatable options: a dash for foreign gas, tying us into the always unpredictable and often combustible state of international politics or, worse, an energy shortfall that will simply blow Britain's fuse. Our response must be immediate, radical and realistic. Non-carbon-emitting technologies may well be the most effective and efficient way of powering domestic households, but in the management of peaks and troughs in the intensive use of a chemicals factory, for instance, renewables may not provide sufficient consistency and horsepower. This is a serious "get real" moment for the Government.
	Underpinning all the policies in the Bill is the need for an effective carbon regime, which is the basic instrument with which to stimulate investment in the green market. The EU emissions trading scheme is not an effective system. We have seen wild fluctuations in the carbon price, from €30 to virtually nothing, and up again to €25. Under phase 1 of the EU ETS, which ends this year, only 5 per cent. of the initial allowance was auctioned. We face an almost obscene paradox: because oil prices are high, the most carbon-emitting companies have enjoyed a £9 billion windfall. We are rewarding the dirtiest, not the cleanest, producers. For phase 2, ending in 2012, the number of auctionable permits has increased to only 10 per cent. Very little is known about phase 3.
	The system is in disarray yet, paradoxically, the Government want a proper carbon regime to underpin their carbon capture, renewables and nuclear policies. There are no measures in the Bill, however, to strengthen such a regime. We want the EU ETS to operate as effectively as possible, but we believe, too, that investors in green technologies do not have time to wait for reforms to the ETS, so we urge the Government to look into our proposal to underpin the system with a carbon tax.

Alan Duncan: There may, for the hon. Gentleman, be a delicious historic point. In 1987 I was the Conservative candidate for Barnsley, West and Penistone, and I gloriously increased a 10,000 Labour majority to a 14,000 Labour majority and still made it look like a success. The real lesson, I would say to the hon. Gentleman and some of his parliamentary colleagues who sit on the same Bench, is that we must look forward and stop looking back. We cannot just look back and say what was. We have to look forward and work out what we can do for the good of the country in the future.
	We recognise that companies are being asked to make investments that will last for a generation or more, and they need to know that their politicians are taking the issues seriously and, I would say again to the hon. Gentleman, are working together. We should acknowledge the great interest that the subject has generated outside the House, and we should thank those who have sent all of us the submissions that we need to study today in order to reach our conclusions on the Bill and on the issue.
	Greenpeace, for instance, says that nuclear is a distraction from focusing our real energies on renewables. I do not entirely agree, but it is a legitimate view. WWF says that we should not build any more fossil fuel installations without carbon capture technology. Friends of the Earth champions our support of feed-in tariffs. Energywatch says that we need to ensure that energy companies offer social tariffs for those trapped in fuel poverty. The Energy Saving Trust and the Energy Retail Association both support our call for mandating smart meters to improve energy efficiency. The Renewable Energy Association makes a range of submissions to strengthen the Bill's incentives for renewables, including developing a sustainability remit for Ofgem. No doubt all those will be debated in Committee in a sensible and open-minded way.
	The Bill first addresses the storage of gas. The recent shift in the UK's status from producer to net importer of gas means that our need for storage facilities has become a very high priority. Because gas is piped and not shipped, it is either on or off. Ships can be redirected, but pipelines cannot. Being exposed to this on/off decision leaves us vulnerable. If we can store gas, that represents a significant antidote to energy vulnerability. If the proposals enable energy companies to buy in the summer and sell in the winter, and pass on to consumers the financial advantages of doing so, it is a no-brainer.
	Given that some people have perfectly rational fear about the security of long-term import dependency, the Government should be committing themselves to developing more capacity for strategic reserves, ready to be called upon in a national or international emergency.
	The Bill also establishes the regulatory framework to explore the potential of carbon capture and storage. We strongly welcome the fact that the Government are finally beginning to take real action on CCS in the UK. We are already seeing the exciting results of such experiments in Norway and the United States. With our large offshore oil and gas presence, the UK is uniquely equipped to take the lead with this technology and cut our own emissions while providing an industrial base for CCS manufacturing and design.
	Regrettably, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) said, the dithering over the past three years has set back our ability to deploy CCS in the UK by up to even a decade, I would argue. We were warning the Government for months that the lack of an adequate regulatory and financial framework risked derailing BP and Scottish and Southern's joint venture at Peterhead. Only an hour after the 2007 White Paper was published, as we predicted, the project collapsed. Had CCS qualified for the renewables obligation, the plant would undoubtedly have been able to go ahead, but as the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now the Chancellor, informed me after the publication of that White Paper, CCS is not included in the renewables obligation because it is not renewable. Maybe not, but it does capture carbon, which fulfils the same objective.
	We still have concerns. If, for instance, 90 per cent. of carbon is captured, will the emissions count as zero or is there a proper formula for making a calculation? Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister can point me towards a proper explanation, amid the Government's various tranches of energy policy statements, of what would happen to the economics of the operating company if CCS were successful.

Gregory Campbell: The hon. Gentleman alludes to the issue of waste disposal. Many hon. Members and the population as a whole are looking at the wider issue, but also at the crucial matter of waste disposal. Is not that the matter that needs the most attention from the Government? It needs to be resolved in order to allow us all to come to a conclusion about the Energy Bill.

Michael Jack: In concurring with my hon. Friend's observations about the lengthy process through which the Government have gone to determine a long-term solution to the question of nuclear waste storage, would he agree that in new generation nuclear power stations it is feasible for waste materials to be dry-stored on site for a reasonable length of time while long-term problems are ultimately resolved?

Alan Duncan: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is feasible, but if nuclear power companies are to guarantee that they will knowingly cover all the costs up front, they will not know what the costs of long-term disposal will be. My right hon. Friend is suggesting that that interim position is somehow okay for investment decisions, but the full picture needs to be known if investment decisions are to be made honestly. My concern is that all the documentation contains hidden suggestions that the interim status that my right hon. Friend identifies could last as long as 50 or 60 years. I do not believe that it is right to pass on to not only the next generation but perhaps the second or third generation responsibility for taking the ultimate decision. We are knowingly foisting that on them in the decisions that we make today.

Alan Duncan: If the economics is totally known, the answer is yes. In that sense, our policy is similar to the Government's: all the economics should be known; all the building blocks should be in place, and, within that regime, companies are entitled to build new nuclear power stations.

John Robertson: I, too, have some reservations about what we do with waste. It is important to specify where it will be put, but that does not get away from the problem of energy security in future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should perhaps take the reprocessing route and introduce MOX power stations, whereby we can get rid of 90 per cent. of the waste and spread it through the system? Reprocessing would tackle many of the problems that he envisages with the long life of high level waste.

John Hutton: I do not want to torture this analysis to death, but the hon. Gentleman has dug himself into a big hole today and I invite him to get out of it. He needs to do so; otherwise, there will be a big question mark over his position. Will he answer the question that I asked him a few minutes ago about whether it is now his policy not to give consent until a repository has been constructed? That is the import of his remarks. May I also reassure him that during the Public Bill Committee we shall publish more detailed proposals about the costing mechanisms, which will address the point raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee? However, in order to maintain the consensus, I invite the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton to answer the question that I have put to him clearly and unambiguously.

Alan Duncan: The question that really matters, as the right hon. Gentleman is in the Government, is the obverse of that question. Is he prepared to go ahead with a new fleet of nuclear power stations without a regime for nuclear waste being in place? That is the question, but he is casting doubt over it in all his contributions today.

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate. I have been a long-term supporter of the benefits of nuclear power as part of a balanced energy policy, and I would like to concentrate my remarks on that aspect of the Bill. I should also declare an interest, in that British Energy has recently decided to relocate its corporate headquarters to my constituency, bringing with it more than 200 high-quality managerial and engineering jobs. I also would like to make clear from the outset my support for other forms of renewable energy, as I believe that we need a diverse energy mix if we are to meet the challenge of massively reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the UK.
	I do not think that any serious supporter of nuclear power in this country is wholly against the renewable sector. The converse does apply, however, in that there are some who want to see an energy mix without a nuclear component. I believe that those who take that position are wrong, and that they are placing the economic future of the country in jeopardy.
	I believe that there are four main pillars on which our energy future should be based: a policy framework, an investment framework, a thriving science, engineering and technology base, and cohesion between the regulatory enablers, industry and the Government, all focused on the same objective. I believe that the Bill provides the policy framework for the years and decades ahead. More development is necessary within it, but I am sure that that will happen, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that it will be developed in Committee. I welcome everything he said in opening the debate.
	I believe that a sound and cohesive framework for investment in infrastructure is paramount in ensuring that all elements deliver our requirements. It is clear that all sectors within the wider energy market now have increased confidence about future and projected needs as well as Government support to achieve those objectives. It has long been argued by those opposed to nuclear power that, leaving aside other issues about waste, it is uneconomic and the market could not or would not take the risk. Thankfully, that has now changed as a result of the Government's approach to the issue.
	As the Secretary of State has said elsewhere—he made further comment today— he is confident that there is a long-term solution to waste disposal. Others will clearly touch on that, but I am encouraged by the way in which my right hon. Friend dealt with that vexed issue. It is difficult, but a solution has to be found in respect of legacy issues and future demand. I believe that he has been realistic and positive on all those matters.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly fair point about the process by which we determine the suitability of individual applications, but an approach that is supportive in principle of renewables of all sorts does not dictate that any individual application should be guaranteed success—unless the hon. Gentleman's position is that those who support renewables should say yes to every application. That would be nonsense; each application should be judged on its merits.
	While I am on the subject of renewables, I am glad that the Secretary of State is still present, because it means that I can give him another chance to answer the question he declined to answer when I intervened on him. Why is the United Kingdom 22nd out of the EU countries on renewables? It is a simple question, but we have no answer. I would be happy to give way; I would be happy for the Secretary of State to interrupt my flow and tell the House why we are so poor. We have had 10 years of a Labour Government, who could have done something about this. What we hear from Ministers is the "jam tomorrow" renewables strategy: "It's going to be great, and there'll be a bright new dawn." We should have seen the evidence of that by now, but we simply have not seen it.
	We only have to look to Germany. If we cite places such as Scandinavia people sometimes say, "Well, that's very different," but Germany is comparable to us in many respects, yet it has achieved huge things. For example, it has achieved 200,000 green-collar jobs, as it calls them, in the renewable industry sector. That could have been a huge opportunity for this country. The Secretary of State said that great things can be done when a Government are consistent, give a lead over a long period, and are supportive of renewables—and he is right, so why have we not done that? As well as the 200,000 green-collar jobs that have been created, solar technology investment in Germany has increased from €450 million in 2000 to €4.9 billion in 2006. That is vision; that is achievement. We have not had that from this Government.
	We have heard the Government of Germany's interpretation of the reasons why that has happened. They are, to quote in translation,
	"support programmes from national and state governments"
	and
	"a legally fixed payment for electricity fed into the public grid."
	That is what has driven what has happened in Germany, and that is what we have lacked.
	When we are particularly enthusiastic about renewables, people sometimes say, "You'll never get anything on the scale that's needed." Yet Greenpeace has calculated that if the UK had done what Germany has done—if we had achieved its level of renewable development—18 per cent. of our energy would today be coming from renewables. That is being delivered in comparable countries; why can it not be done here?
	As the Secretary of State said, the delay in getting renewables moving is partly caused by the delay in getting grid connections. Interconnection with the grid is an important issue. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, quoting the Stern review, feed-in mechanisms are a good idea if we can get connection into the grid working. However, the Secretary of State sounded like a passive onlooker—"Oh, there's a bit of a problem with renewables, in getting connection to the grid." Well, who has been in charge for the past 10 years? Who could have done something about that, if there had been the political will and commitment to do it? Yet he stands up today, after 10 years in power, and says, "Oh, we've got a bit of a problem getting connections into the grid." Whose fault is that? Is he not responsible?

John Robertson: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. The Government's point—the whole issue about energy—is that we must have a balanced energy policy so that we do not put ourselves in one little box and end up stuck with what we have done. Should the Government not therefore be commended on what they are trying to do? The hon. Gentleman is not commending us at the moment.

Steve Webb: If the other policies—greater energy efficiency, greater energy conservation and more encouragement for renewables a decade ago—had been more effective, nuclear power might not have been needed, even according to the Government's analysis.
	There are a number of concerns about new nuclear capacity. It might surprise some hon. Members to hear that in my constituency there is an active operating nuclear power plant. It is not self-evidently politically wise for me to stand up and say that I do not support new nuclear. However, having considered the evidence and the arguments, that is the conclusion that I have reached. We need to set out why.
	First, to echo the words of a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, new nuclear initiatives risk distracting us from renewables and energy efficiency. The right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), when she was Secretary of State, said:
	"It would have been foolish to announce"—
	that the Government would support new nuclear—
	"because that would have guaranteed"—
	that is a strong word—
	"that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both energy efficiency and in renewables."—[ Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 32.]
	She was right then—and that approach is right now. The danger is that if we go down that track and invest time, effort, legislative time and, undoubtedly, public money in new nuclear, that is bound to sidetrack us from the subject of energy efficiency and renewables.
	The Secretary of State said in his statement that he was not mandating new nuclear plants, but inviting them. What happens if industry does not come forward? How will the gap be met? If new nuclear investors judge that it is too risky, or that the economics do not add up, for whatever reason, what is plan B?

Steve Webb: Funnily enough, the hon. Gentleman repeats a common misconception about renewables. Although an individual wind turbine in one place might provide an intermittent supply, in managing energy demand we are interested in the aggregate of all renewables over the economy. First, there are few times of day without wind, sun or waves. Secondly, tidal power is—surprisingly enough—incredibly predictable centuries ahead.
	We need to be able to predict the aggregate of renewables. I agree that it will not be level throughout 24 hours, but neither is energy demand. We do not need inflexible sources that are simply on all the time, which and that we are stuck with. We need flexibility to meet the fluctuations of demand through the day. We would be lumbered with the nuclear input and obliged to use it, whereas we need flexible sources such as gas-fired stations with carbon capture or renewables, which can to some extent be stored and used at later points. Let me use the Severn barrage as an example: although the tides are predictable, there are ways in which the water can be pumped when there is excess energy and used when it is needed. There are more flexibilities than are commonly understood.

David Chaytor: If we are discussing plan B—leaving aside electricity generation and considering total energy use—it is on page 164 of the nuclear White Paper. The analysis from the UK Markal-Macro model shows that without new nuclear, we would need to decrease emissions from car fuel by 13 per cent. I would not have thought that it would take rocket science to achieve that.

Peter Luff: As the Select Committee Chairman, I try to be open-minded and even-handed, but the hon. Gentleman would try the patience of even the most amenable of men. The liabilities that he is talking about stem largely from military use, and the material was stored in an appalling way, with no thought for the future. We now have a much clearer idea of the what the costs actually are, and he should not confuse the House, and the public, by mixing up the legacy issues with the issues in connection with future waste.

Steve Webb: Two questions arise from that intervention. First, if the technological problems of waste disposal have been resolved, why is waste not already in deep storage? Why is it still stored on the surface, which is highly unadvisable—and not ideal in the context of a possible terrorist attack, or in any other context. We have not resolved the problems involved: we do not know where the waste will go, or how it will be dealt with.
	Those elements remain uncertain, but my second question is about something referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). The Bill provides that companies must pay their share of "the cost"—but what share of the total cost will be allocated to the first nuclear entrant to the market? Will it be 100 per cent? Or will the Government say, for example, "We think there'll be three entrants, so we'll charge you a third of what we think the cost will be"? But then, if nobody else comes in, will they then say, "Actually, on second thoughts, you've got to pay the whole cost, because there's no one else incurring it"? How is the Government to know what the future cost will be? That is the point that I would make to the Chairman of the Select Committee. Companies entering the market cannot know what their share of the future cost will be, because they cannot know how many entrants there will be.

Peter Luff: What is intriguing about the debate so far is how little of it has related directly to the Energy Bill. It has instead been about energy policy. That highlights a problem for the Government. It would have been much better if we had had a proper debate about the energy White Paper published last year. We have not had that debate. One can see that the House is bursting with enthusiasm on this important subject, and rightly so. It is a shame that we have to squeeze a policy debate into a debate on a narrow, technical Bill that is not that interesting or controversial, although the issues on which it touches clearly are.
	Next week, I will have the advantage of seeing the Minister for Energy when he comes before the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee to discuss fuel prices and energy security—that is, to discuss keeping the lights on—so I will have the opportunity to go beyond my eight minutes with him then. However, it is a great shame that we are restricted to such a short debate on such a complicated, important subject, and on such a curious Bill.
	Fuel poverty is growing as a result of fuel price rises. I am not sure what our response to that should be. It is interesting to explore why prices are rising. The energy gap is bearing down on us. I did not agree with everything—in fact, I agreed with hardly anything—that the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) said in the early part of his remarks, but towards the end of his speech he said some interesting and important things about how we will fill the looming energy gap. I think that there is a real possibility of life-extension for nuclear power plants, which would help. The Government clearly hope that the Bill will help them massively to expand renewables production, but if it does not, the looming gap would be filled by gas and coal. It may well be that there will be no gap in the market for new nuclear investment, and the right hon. Gentleman might then get his wish, for reasons that he would not endorse—a massive increase in as yet unclean hydrocarbon generation. It is a shame that we cannot debate the issues in more length and that we did not get the chance to discuss them sooner.
	I suppose that the big policy change in the Bill—it was heavily signalled, and announced in the White Paper—is on the renewables obligation and its banding. I understand why the Government made that change, but until now, the obligation has been a technology-blind mechanism to encourage renewable power, and I tend to prefer it when Governments are technology-blind. It used to be left to developers to determine the most cost-effective way of building new sources of renewable energy. Given that renewables are quite an expensive way of cutting carbon emissions—we should not forget that; nuclear, however, is a cheap way of doing so—that was the right approach. It turns out that developers chose onshore wind, which is controversial, and biomass co-firing. We are now going for an approach that favours specific technologies, including wave, tidal and solar. That might suggest the direction that the Government's thinking will take on the Severn barrage and the Severn tidal energy sources.
	My concern is that the renewables obligation process is hellishly complicated. It is not at all straightforward; it is a difficult system to work. One leading expert in the field said to me last week, "It's almost a parody of a piece of regulation now." When we add the complexity of banding and the grandfathering of existing rights, heaven knows what kind of mess it will be to operate. The renewables obligation certificate process is difficult, and it is made more difficult by the Bill. The Government say that the changes to the process will bring forward more renewable energy and a broader range of technologies. It probably will do the latter, because it will increase the subsidy for expensive technologies, but I do not see how it will bring forward more renewable energy.
	One of the virtues of the system is that the cost to consumers is predetermined. The overall amount of subsidy from consumers is known—and it is citizens, not as taxpayers but as consumers, who pay for the renewables obligation process. If we are to shift the way in which the money is spent—if we move the deckchairs around—how will it lead to more rapid development of the total contribution that renewables make to our electricity needs? I just do not think that it can. In fact, it is likely to lead to a slower rate of contribution to our total energy needs for renewables.
	I am nervous about Governments picking winners; they often make the wrong decisions. The Mayor of London has made the wrong decision about whether hybrid cars should pay the congestion charge. I do not think that they are the most environmentally friendly way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, there are new diesel technologies. When Governments pick winners, we get into difficulties.
	Feed-in tariffs have featured extensively in the debate. We all think that they are a good thing, and we all cite examples from around the globe of their contributing to decentralised energy generation. We all think that they are marvellous. However, when my Select Committee undertook its report on decentralised energy last year, it hedged its bets on the issue. I think that the jury is out on feed-in tariffs; I am open-minded on the subject. The issue is really who pays for feed-in tariffs. My real worry is that it is the early, middle-class adopters who will get the benefit of such tariffs. When the price goes up for electricity as a whole—as it will, because someone has to pay for the scheme—the risk is that poorer people will find that the price of their electricity goes up. They cannot afford the generating technologies that allow them to take advantage of feed-in tariffs. We have to be careful about the assumption that feed-in tariffs are a good thing, and I remain open-minded on the subject.
	The debate inevitably became passionate on the subject of nuclear, but in fact there is not much in the Bill on the nuclear issue. The Bill forms a narrow, technical but important part of the Government's progress towards providing a new generation of nuclear reactors. There was a big debate between the Front Benchers on the issues of waste management and costing. I think that the Government's heart is in the right place, but I hope that they will move towards greater clarity soon, because at present we do not know what the phrase, "full share", really means. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton about the practicalities of nuclear waste management. However, making sure that the payment process is transparent and that there is no hidden subsidy is a big problem, and the Government must move fast to clarify their position.
	On the issue of permitting a new generation of nuclear reactors, there is something else of huge importance that the Bill does not cover—the staffing levels of the nuclear installations inspectorate, which has just six people available for the task. Approval of the Sizewell B design approval took 270 man years of the then regulator's time, so it would take six people 40 or 50 years each of their entire working life to approve a single reactor design, never mind the three or four proposed for the new generation. I therefore hope that the Minister will repeat the Government's assurance that the nuclear installations inspectorate will learn from extensive international experience. It is not just one reactor in Finland that is being built worldwide—there are reactors being built around the globe, some of them extremely successfully. I hope that we will learn from that experience, and not reinvent the wheel. I rather hoped for an intervention, so that I would gain an extra minute.

Peter Luff: I am happy to endorse that observation, as the problems remains a key issue in the future of our energy market. The Committee is shortly going to Brussels, subject to the Whips' permission, to explore progress on it, because it is the single most important question in the workings of the market.
	It is great that the Bill does a lot to create a regime on carbon capture and storage, but we still do not have a workable commercial demonstration or project. The Bill's provisions therefore do not amount to much, as we need to reassurance that the system is going to work. The big missing thing from the Bill is the smart meter question. I have seen evidence from the industry, including Centrica, in which it says that it would like a mandate in the Bill for smart meters. Centrica has proposed a system for rolling out regional franchises, and I believe that a competitive energy market would deliver smart meters to both the business and private sectors, because meters provide an enhanced service to people whom companies supply with energy. That is not happening, so the Government must make sure that their approach—I accept that an Ofgem study is under way—will deliver smart metering. I do not think that intermediate display technology is a sensible way forward, as it runs the risk of disincentivising investment in smart meters. I have undertaken a rapid rush around the issues. We look forward to the Minister's winding-up speech and to hearing what he says to the Committee, when he appears before us next week.

Albert Owen: It is a great pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who, while surveying the issues, made some poignant points.
	I am pro-nuclear, pro-renewables and pro-energy efficiency, and I do not see any contradiction in those beliefs. I should like to add a Welsh dimension to our debate, as I do not think that there are any other Members from Wales in the Chamber.  [ Interruption. ] I apologise, the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) is here. However, I am the only Welsh Member with a nuclear power station in operation in their constituency. Many of my colleagues from Wales, including Labour Members, are against nuclear, and I shall address their fears.
	I support the Bill, as well as the energy and nuclear White Papers. It is about time that we moved forward on nuclear, as we have been talking about it for some time. We had the worst of all worlds in the last review, which was neutral on nuclear: the review did nothing for either side, and left the question hanging. The industry could not move forward, and it is important that we do so now. Before I tackle the question of nuclear and carbon capture, I should like to deal with the renewables obligation, which many people in industry find confusing and bureaucratic. I hope that the banding proposals will eliminate that confusion and help companies to invest in renewables. I shall therefore be interested to hear the Minister's reply, and I hope that when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House on Report it will include measures to make the banding system efficient and less bureaucratic.
	We are discussing this important Bill at a time of rising gas and oil prices, and increases in utility bills. The Minister will know that I have campaigned for some time to improve the gas network in the United Kingdom, and it is appropriate to discuss that in the context of the Bill and increasing gas prices. Many people in my constituency and, indeed, in constituencies across Wales and the United Kingdom, are not connected to a gas main, and their alternatives are even more expensive than mains gas.
	We have campaigned on two issues: first, if people do not have a choice, they should not have to use expensive alternatives; secondly—and this important point has been touched on by other hon. Members—we must tackle fuel poverty. Many of the semi-rural and rural areas that I represent suffer from that problem, and it is compounded by lack of access to a gas main. I am not talking about isolated properties but about small towns and large villages close to a gas main. The regime operated by Ofgem does not help the situation—it hinders it—and makes it expensive to use gas in such places. I hope that the Government and the gas companies are trying to find formulas to get gas to those people. There are many customers in constituencies around the country who want access to gas mains. There is a missed opportunity in the Bill, so I hope that the Minister can help me.
	Turning to the pro-nuclear argument, many people want a nuclear-free Wales. They say so, because of the perceived risks of nuclear. In my constituency, hundreds of high-skilled jobs derive from the nuclear industry. If a nuclear-free Wales went ahead, and England went ahead with new measures on nuclear, particularly in the south at Hinckley, Wales would suffer the perceived risks without having any of the economic benefits provided by the industry. Many people from my area, which has a history and understanding of nuclear as well as a high skills base, would gravitate to other parts of the United Kingdom. Colleagues who are dogmatic in their opposition to nuclear should therefore consider all the options.

Albert Owen: I should be interested to receive that report. I have visited the centre. Indeed, its members gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee. Some of the founders of the centre were pro-nuclear, as they believed that nuclear was a green energy. However, some of the centre's present members deny that that is the case. I believe that nuclear is a green energy, which will help us to achieve the low-carbon economy to which we all aspire.
	I am genuinely pro-renewables and other alternatives as well as nuclear. In my constituency, we have a number of wind farms as well as a nuclear power station. Indeed, we have a licence to produce gas. My constituents and I, therefore, do not think that energy should be produced elsewhere. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) say in response to an intervention that 75 per cent. of planning applications are turned down. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats in Wales oppose many such schemes, and I am afraid want windmills to be sited in areas where the wind does not blow and where they would not be very efficient.
	A proposal has been made to develop the Gwynt y Môr wind farm in north Wales into one of the biggest wind farms in the country. The Conservatives in the area oppose the proposal to develop that wind farm off the north Wales coast. If the Liberal Democrats will not allow wind farms to be built in windy areas on land, and wind farms are not allowed to be built offshore either, I do not know how we will achieve that rich mix that they talk about.
	We have to grapple with the issues: technology in the nuclear industry is moving on, but waste is a massive problem that has been fudged for far too long by successive Governments. It is time that we dealt with it, and we are moving towards a solution. I was intrigued by the suggestion from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), who appeared to be very confused and dug himself into hole. One cannot be a little pro-nuclear: one is either pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. It is a bit like being pregnant: one cannot be a little bit pregnant. I therefore think that the Conservatives' position is a bit of a cop-out.
	If we are in favour of nuclear, we must do what is best to get rid of nuclear waste. The legacy waste as well as the new nuclear waste must be dealt with properly. We hear about various estimates of the amount of waste. Depending whom one listens to, we are told that there is enough nuclear waste to fill X number of Albert halls, but much of the civil nuclear waste and even the military and medical nuclear waste is intermediate or low level. The volume of high-risk waste is considerably less.
	When people think about waste and legacy waste, they should think about the past waste legacy of other sources of power, such as coal, which we have to manage. Copper mines and tin mines, too, have scarred areas of the United Kingdom. Waste management is important, but how many Albert halls or Millennium stadiums could be filled with the carbon that is killing the atmosphere? We must deal with the waste properly.
	I am unsure whether the technology is coming on stream quickly enough to deal with carbon capture, and I am a little worried. I am glad that we are putting the mechanisms in place. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who spoke about separation.
	In conclusion, I am pro-nuclear, pro-renewables and pro-energy efficiency. For the 21st century we must be mature enough to grab all those and move forward with the technology to achieve the stable and affordable supply of electricity that we need for high-intensive industries across the United Kingdom. If we do not, other nations will develop nuclear, and we will be importing nuclear electricity to keep the smelter works in my constituency and other parts of the United Kingdom going. The Bill is technical and deals with some of those difficult issues. The time has come to be pro-nuclear and positive about the future.

Laurence Robertson: I am a firm believer in renewables. If we have renewables and a nuclear industry, we will be going places with regard to carbon. On a very cold, very still day, we would get no electricity at all from wind power. Let us not forget that on the coldest days in the United Kingdom, which are very still, there would be no wind and therefore no electricity, so we should not depend on that source to a greater extent.
	On the financing of the industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton is right. However, if it is not attractive for companies to bid to build nuclear power plants, they will not do it, so I do not see that there is a great fuss to be made about that aspect. The Government have invited bids, which they could have done 10 years ago, but they have not said that there will be a new generation of nuclear power plants. They can improve and speed up the planning process and perhaps encourage the processes to go ahead in areas that already have nuclear power plants, such as Sizewell and Sellafield. That would be sensible. I am glad that the Government have said what they have, although they have not actually said, "We are going to build a new generation of nuclear power plants."
	The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, is not in his place and I do not wish to be unkind, but in what I considered a rather politically naive speech he made a good point when he asked what would happen if no one came forward to bid. The same would be true if no one came forward to bid for the Severn barrage. As an MP whose constituency is bordered by the River Severn, I have looked into the matter closely. I have also visited the barrage at La Rance in Brittany, which was built 40 years ago. It is probably a tenth of the size of the potential of the Severn barrage, but it was well worth visiting to see how it works—and it does work. When it was built, there was tremendous disruption to fish life and to bird life, and it has taken quite a long time for that to recover. I was told by people there when I visited that if they built it now with new technology, they might do it differently and it might not cause the same disruption.
	The appraisal, which is at least 10 years late, is welcome. I want to ensure that it takes an independent look at the prospects of a Severn barrage, with all that that means. It is probably fairly easy to calculate the amount of electricity that would be generated from it. That has to be good—it is secure and it is green. I want the wider aspects of the environment to be considered when the appraisal goes ahead.
	My constituency was badly hit six months ago by the terrible floods, as were a number of other places. The past couple of weeks have been extremely worrying for people there, who are not even back in their homes after six months and are some months from being so. They are extremely anxious about further flooding. The appraisal must also consider what impact a Severn barrage would have on flooding in the area. I do not have the technical knowledge to say whether it would be good or bad for flooding. I want the appraisal to take an independent look at that.
	I have some enthusiasm for the project, which deserves very serious consideration for the reasons that I have given. We have to find a way forward in respect of secure and green energy supplies. However, I hope that the appraisal will be objective and neutral; I am a little concerned that the people running it are by and large linked to or from the Government. I understand that they will take evidence from outsiders, but I would have liked the running of the appraisal to have been better and more balanced. Nevertheless, we are where we are and I hope that those involved will take into account the points that I have raised.
	It is important that we move forward with projects such as the Severn barrage, because of the importance of security of supply and green issues. However, we also have to move forward with the balanced energy policy that I mentioned at the beginning. Unlike the hon. Member for Northavon, I do not accept that nuclear energy would take our eye off the ball; only a small-minded person would allow that to happen. We must have nuclear and renewables and we will have to continue with coal and gas for some time yet. Having one source of electricity does not mean that we cannot have another one. We must have a balanced approach to energy; putting all our eggs in one basket would be dangerous, and I hope that we do not go down that road.

Colin Challen: Patrick Moore's name was called in aid last week, during the statement. Somebody kindly sent me a copy of the  Electrical Review, volume 240, No. 4. An article in it states that Dr. Moore
	"wrote last year to the Royal Society arguing there was no 'scientific proof' that mankind was causing global warming".
	Was that the kind of statement to which my hon. Friend referred?

Stephen Ladyman: I agree entirely. The dogma exists because people do not regard nuclear power as safe. They still have a view of some huge accident record. Even last night as I was talking about the issue with a colleague, who is not in the debate today, Chernobyl was raised. I asked him how many people actually died at Chernobyl. "Thousands," he said. The truth? According to the United Nations—not just one section of it, but the environmental groups within it, the World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency—62 people died and that includes 15 children living in the area who died from thyroid cancers. That is a disaster—

Stephen Ladyman: No, I cannot. I accept that that was a disaster, but compare it with the WHO's estimates of how many people die every year as a result of carbon being put into the atmosphere. I am not talking about climate change, but about respiratory diseases related to carbon. Three million people die from them every year, and colleagues in the House are telling me that it is green to oppose a technology that in 50 years has led to the deaths of fewer than 100 people? Are we instead to rely on an energy source that kills that many people every 20 minutes of every single day of the year? That is nonsense. All low-carbon technologies need to be put on the table.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, I am also a firm supporter of renewables. Indeed, I would be mad not to be—London Array, the biggest wind farm currently planned, is to be constructed off my constituency. Conservative Members were saying that they opposed onshore wind farms and wanted them all to be offshore. I remind them that a Conservative council in Kent delayed the start of London Array's construction—by objecting not to the offshore wind farm, but to planning permission for the onshore substation for the wind farm. That is the extent of their opposition to any building of renewables plants.
	If we can go ahead with the development of London Array and of the Warwick Energy wind farm, the other field off my part of the coast, and have them constructed from the port of Ramsgate—if the manufacturing of the wind farms can be done in east Kent, as I think possible and economic—we can become a centre of expertise around the world for wind farm construction. We could help everywhere else in the country with the construction of wind farms; perhaps we could get a little close to hitting the 15 per cent. target that people speculate we will have to achieve in the short term. However, all that does not mean that we should overlook the benefits that nuclear energy can deliver. We should consider all the low-carbon technologies.
	Yes, we should also carry out the study into the Severn barrage but, I say to Members on both sides of the House who are obviously excited about its possibilities, let us wait and see the science and see what the environmental impact will be before we make our decision. Taking energy out of water changes the environment in the water. If one takes energy out of rough water, one gets smooth water; if one takes energy out of the tide, one gets flat water. The sediment in the water settles and the things that used to live in that ecosystem cannot live there any more. Recently developed new technologies can help with that, because they do not take out all the energy and can use different types of construction rather than the old barrage system that we used to talk about, and which, if the Liberal Democrats had had their way, we might have started to build 10 years ago. We have gone beyond that. Perhaps there are solutions to building the Severn barrage that will not have those environmental consequences, but we cannot rely on them and we have to wait for the science. In the meantime, we must plan an energy mix that guarantees our energy security into the future and ensures that we focus on the key enemy that we face today—carbon.
	Let me relay one further story. A few years ago, I had a conversation with a senior official from the Russian embassy. I said, "What is your energy policy?" He replied, "Our energy policy is that we're going to produce our energy from nuclear power and hold on to the gas until we control it and control the price, and then we're going to sell it to you."

Michael Jack: I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) when he was a Minister, but I welcome him back to his Back-Bench position because he always brings sound science to our debates. I agree with the line that he has taken. Like the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), I find myself in the category of a supporter of the nuclear power industry as well as of renewables and energy efficiency.
	I looked to the Bill to give me a sense of direction and a sense of policy, but the long shopping list that it represents did not provide me with that, so I thought that I would try to find some words that summed up what an energy Bill at this stage in our Parliament should be about, and decided that it should be described as a Bill to secure low-carbon sources of power and heat bolstered by an efficient energy efficiency policy. That illustrates one important drawback to debating energy in a climate change vacuum. It is a pity that we could not be debating one piece of legislation combining energy and climate change. The various White Papers that the Government have produced in the past 12 months did not achieve that objective, so it is important that we do, and the contributions by all right hon. and hon. Members have brought together all aspects of energy policy.
	In my earlier intervention, I expressed sadness that the Bill does not say anything about a renewable heat obligation. Given the European Union targets for renewable energy that are likely to come out tomorrow, aiming at anything up to 20 per cent. coming from renewables, and with a third of our emissions in this country coming from heat sources, it is disappointing that the Government have yet to resolve their position on a renewable heat obligation, because it will clearly to be an important part of our energy policy in future.
	As my constituency of Fylde is the home of nuclear fuel production, I am sure that the House will not be surprised to learn that the nearly 1,700 workers in that industry have welcomed the Bill, as I do. However—the Bill is silent on this point, but perhaps the Minister can give me some reassurance—they are worried that in enabling the United Kingdom to use its nuclear expertise, particularly in the field of high-quality, safe production of nuclear fuel, the arrangement that will exist between the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency and Toshiba Westinghouse, which operates the site at Springfield, near Preston, will retain the skills and excellence of our fuel manufacture and capture the benefits of the energy security that indigenous fuel production will give us while making certain that we do not introduce other forces—perhaps other opportunities for people to run the site at Springfield—which would dissipate the enormous gains in productivity and safety in manufacture that have been built up over the years. A reassurance from Ministers would do a great deal to help to secure the retention and skills of the people in the work force at what could be the home of future nuclear fuel production in the United Kingdom. Clearly, we have to sort out the issue of nuclear waste, but that should not be a showstopper as regards the activities that the Government have started in order to enable bids to go ahead and enable design approval to be given to a new nuclear generation of nuclear power stations.

Michael Jack: I accept it in principle. We touched on the definition of "all" earlier in the debate, and the Government have yet to crystallise precisely what that would mean. It is often forgotten that our existing advanced gas-cooled reactors already have to make provision for their decommissioning costs and are still able to produce competitively priced electricity. Certainly, the public must have confidence that they will not be left with a legacy cost for new nuclear build.
	I want to move on to energy efficiency. I am disappointed that the Bill does not contain more about smart metering. I had a meeting with representatives of Scottish and Southern Energy, who came to talk to me about the report by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, where, in our climate change citizens' agenda analysis, we described the benefits that could come from smart metering. They said that proper smart metering, which would provide appropriate tariff management and control of the use of electrical equipment in the domestic situation, would make it possible to save up to the capacity of two power stations-worth of generation. The Bill refers to meter accuracy. I accept that the Government are undertaking trials, but we do not want to miss a golden opportunity to maximise the use of our existing sources of electrical generation without moving forward. Perhaps the Minister might be able to make an announcement on that during the course of the Bill's progress.
	That opens up the question of decentralised power. We have heard a discussion about domestic generation of energy. When the Select Committee visited Freiburg and Stuttgart in Germany, we saw for ourselves the potential of the German feed-in tariff. I wish that Ministers would stop misleading the public to the effect that this is the product of some giant German subsidy or that it is costing Germany energy users an unaffordable amount—it is not, as the average figure is €2 per household per month. If one is prepared to accept that customers currently pay for the existing energy efficiency commitment and for the renewables obligation certificate, it should be possible for customers to pay for a feed-in tariff system in this country.
	It is not a question of seeing Britain's roofs covered by photovoltaic cells. Without the feed-in tariff, decentralised community-based systems are inhibited from being developed. It has been left to the market leader, Woking, to pioneer combined heat and power—a decentralised system that puts money in the coffers of the local authority, as well as providing local authority buildings, a hotel, two blocks of flats and an entertainment centre in Woking with the ability to produce their own power and electricity. That local authority could do more, but there is nothing in the Bill about private wire capacity and nothing to change the trading arrangements to enable such a local authority to sell on a much wider basis its skill and expertise in decentralised local electricity generation.
	Such a revolution could mean that we could have the best of all worlds—a guarantee of safe base load through nuclear, generation through the exploitation of renewables in the way that the Government want, and a proper decentralised energy-efficient system for the consumer, properly monitored by a smart metering system. That is how we should be looking to have a balanced and secure energy portfolio. Unfortunately, however, the Bill does not provide for that optimum use of the skills, technologies and knowledge that exist in Europe and in the United Kingdom.
	Given that challenges are coming from Europe, perhaps in the next few hours, I urge the Government to be more ambitious with the Bill, even at this late stage, and to exploit all the opportunities to develop a true low-carbon and secure source of energy for this country.

Paddy Tipping: The two drivers of energy policy have traditionally been security of supply and the challenge of climate change, but there is a third important pillar, which is affordability.
	In reality, the liberalised energy market has served us well. In comparative terms, energy costs in the United Kingdom are still relatively low. But all householders are facing increases in their bills, in some cases by as much as 29 per cent., which has real implications for the Government's target of eradicating fuel poverty by 2010. There are four million households in difficulty at the moment, and every 1 per cent. rise in energy prices adds roughly another 40,000 to the number. There lies a real challenge, and the Government need to think about it. It is not just a question of a commitment; there is a legal requirement to meet that target.
	One of the things that could be done is to increase the Warm Front contribution. Secondly, fuel poverty should be treated as a social issue. A great deal of information is held on the number of people who are vulnerable, which needs to be shared with the energy companies. It is also clear that many who are entitled to help are not getting it. With regard to social policy, we need to ensure that we take those fairly simple measures.
	In the Chamber today, and in future, there will be a debate about social tariffs. Some energy companies are performing well. Energy companies are offering £56 million in support this year, but the situation is diffuse and confusing, and we need to revisit it. I am glad that the Secretary of State has told us that the idea of legislation on a compulsory tariff is still under review. I say to the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs that this matter will be pursued vigorously during the passage of the Bill.
	It has been made clear, particularly by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), that smart metering can have an important effect on fuel poverty. There is plenty in the Bill about meters, but there is no provision at all about smart meters, despite the fact that the Government are committed to introduce them. The last energy White Paper included that commitment, and the Prime Minister has recently reinforced it. It is a big task: 45 million meters have to be changed. A successful pilot scheme is going on now.

Anne Main: I declare an interest, in that my husband has undertaken some IT consultancy work for Utilita, a small energy company.
	I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who focused on smart metering and fuel poverty. As we are supposed to be mindful of fuel consumption and waste, and the Government have expressed a keen desire to alleviate fuel poverty, I am especially concerned because the Bill misses an opportunity to eradicate fuel poverty and increase our national energy efficiency. The Secretary of State mentioned such concerns, and said that how we use energy and tackle climate change is vital. That is why the Bill represents a missed opportunity.
	It has been acknowledged that production from the UK continental shelf is declining, and it is anticipated that we will rely on imported gas by 2020. Higher gas prices mean that it is even more vital for poorer households to be helped to become energy-efficient.
	Energywatch has been mentioned many times during the debate. It has drawn attention to the Bill's shortcomings, stating that it represents a missed opportunity to introduce important provisions. That is especially true at a time of high fuel prices. Why is the Government's laudable aim of alleviating fuel poverty absent from the Bill? I do not believe that that was their intention. That aim should be added to the Bill in Committee.
	Energywatch observes:
	"Reliance on the market to deliver adequate packages of support voluntarily is not sufficient. This is clearly demonstrated by the disparity in the levels of assistance that energy companies offer to their fuel poor customers."
	Earlier, the Secretary of State said that legislation should be the last resort. I am worried that that means that there will be no legislation to tackle fuel poverty. Such legislation is needed, because fuel poverty, which is defined as when a household spends 10 per cent. or more of its income on gas and electricity, is a large and growing problem. It is shocking that 4 million homes are in fuel poverty, and that the problem is increasing rather than decreasing.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. People need not only access to the internet but to be savvy enough to negotiate their way around many of the offers. People switch their energy providers, but as my hon. Friend says, it is often the more intellectual or thinking user who manages to switch most frequently and get the most benefit.
	The population of St. Albans includes a high proportion of people with degrees. We are known for being an educated population. St. Albans is perceived as being affluent, but it has areas of genuine deprivation. It is estimated that 16 per cent. of my residents in affluent St. Albans—some 7,500 households—live in fuel poverty. That is above the national average. The problem therefore affects all areas, not only the more obviously poor communities. National Energy Action estimates that the national figure could hit 3 million by 2010. Fuel poverty should therefore be a key feature of the Bill.
	In October 2007, I met the Energy Retail Association because of my concerns about my poorer communities in St. Albans. The association was formed in 2003 and represents Britain's suppliers of electricity and gas to the domestic market. I understand that it is working closely with the Government, which I welcome, to ensure that there is a co-ordinated approach to tackling key issues. All the main energy suppliers are members, and the meeting in October showed that they were worried that there was some sclerosis in the Government's introduction of smart metering, which would help fulfil their commitment to alleviate fuel poverty.
	Smart metering has been mentioned often in the debate. The Secretary of State knows that the ERA is calling on the Government to provide a mandate for the energy retail industry to roll out smart meters. We are talking about 45 million households; it is a massive project, along the lines of introducing chip and pin. We must think big, and I am not sure whether the Government will do that. Support for smart metering constituted a clear commitment in the energy White Paper, and the Secretary of State said that the Bill should implement key parts of that document. Smart metering was in the White Paper, so why is not it in the Bill? I do not understand the logic. If the Bill provides no mandate, the industry will get cold feet. We have heard examples of the industry getting cold feet about other projects, and the last thing we need is for the industry to worry that the Government have no genuine commitment to smart metering.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) attended a meeting of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government in December. When I raised energy companies' comments on smart metering with her and the Minister for Housing, the latter stated:
	"We are expecting to respond to the consultation around Smart meters in the New Year."
	We are in the new year now. How far have we progressed?
	How far have we progressed with the Ofgem trial? The hon. Member for Sherwood said that it was successful. If so, is there a commitment to smart metering? I do not believe that there is, because at the Select Committee meeting, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs went on about electricity display devices—EDDs. They are a method of examining what we use, but not of tapping into fuel tariffs, which would relieve fuel poverty the most. I asked her about fuel poverty, but her reply, which is in the transcript of the evidence, skirted around EDDs without focusing on smart metering. If we are to regain our focus on smart metering it needs to be included in the Bill, or the energy industry will not believe that we intend to act.
	The £60 EDD is a sticking plaster, not a solution. It taps only into electricity, not gas. If the Government are to focus only on EDDs, let us have some clarity and honesty. They should admit that they are abandoning the commitment, which the Prime Minister reiterated, to proper smart metering. If every household is to have smart metering in the next decade, provision must be made in the Bill and we need to buy in to it. An early-day motion has been signed by 128 Members, calling on the Government to push forward on this. That shows that not only the energy industry but many hon. Members are willing the Government on, so I ask them please not to drop the ball at such a late stage.
	As I have said, fuel poverty affects an increasing number of households. I should therefore like the Government to explain why, when they said that they were concerned about it, they have not included the aim of alleviating it in the Bill. Many people, including 16 per cent. of households in my constituency, face a choice between heating and eating this winter. That is not good enough. I believe that, for all of us who are committed to alleviating fuel poverty, the Bill represents a missed opportunity if it does not include that aim. I urge further consideration of that in Committee.

Jamie Reed: I begin by declaring an interest as the Member of Parliament for Sellafield or, perhaps more accurately, for 17,000 individual interests. That is the number of jobs that depend on the plant in my part of the world.
	The Secretary of State rightly said in his opening remarks that no single generating source can solve the problems of climate change that now face us. Obviously, I shall concentrate on the Bill's nuclear element, which, in my view, is overdue, necessary and welcome. I want to pick up on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) about the tone that has characterised the debate so far. It appears to be becoming a constrained debate—almost an intellectual straitjacket—in that many hon. Members are concentrating on how to stop the nuclear industry rather than on how to fight climate change. Surely than cannot be right and should be avoided.
	The Government consultation on the nuclear option has been thorough, lengthy and detailed. Nobody can doubt that everybody who wants to have their say on the nuclear issue has had every opportunity to make their views known. It is a matter of regret that certain groups with what I can only describe as a pathological hatred of the industry have chosen to withdraw from the consultation, no doubt as part of their strategy of taking the Government to the High Court yet again, in order to seek to thwart the will of a democratically elected Government who are seeking to address the civilisation-threatening phenomenon of climate change.
	Such opposition is as inexplicable as it is predictable and illogical. People of my generation, for which I make no claims to be a spokesperson, cannot understand how groups that claim to care so much about our planet and our environment can seek to thwart the necessary steps that will give us our best chance of preserving our environment and our life within it. Those groups have no absolute or sole right to term themselves environmentalists; indeed, I consider myself an environmentalist. The label, which is often misappropriated by the anti-nuclear brigade, serves only to undermine a lot of the good work that environmentalists have done for decades in this country.
	None the less, the nuclear element of the Bill marks a spectacular renaissance of an industry that until recently—until two or so years ago—was dead. In fact, the Bill represents a resurrection more than a renaissance. Either way, it is of real and material importance to communities such as mine up and down this country. The Prime Minister put it best in his foreword to the White Paper when he wrote:
	"More than ever before, nuclear power has a key role to play as part of the UK's energy mix. I am confident that nuclear power can and will make a real contribution to meeting our commitments to limit damaging climate change."
	With that in mind, I want to stress that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), I am an enthusiastic advocate of renewable energy, assuming that the developments are situated in the right places, that they actually work and that they are worth going ahead with. We all know that, objectively, not all of them are. It is for those reasons that I support the unprecedented subsidies, totalling billions of pounds, that the Government are putting into renewable technologies.
	I should add that it is a matter of fact that the subsidy works. It is also a matter of fact that energy utility companies would not touch renewables without the renewable fuels obligation; indeed, they have told me so, as I am sure they have told many other hon. Members. Moreover, without the renewable fuels obligation, the consumer—we have heard a lot of wise talk about fuel poverty—would not touch renewables either.
	With my support for renewables clearly established, I return to the issues of nuclear, as these have been the most significant points of debate and argument on the Bill so far. There are perhaps 10 principal myths about nuclear. They have been raised today and will be raised again over the coming hours, weeks and months in this place, in the media and, I expect, in the High Court—I refer to them as myths, but they might be more accurately described as lies.
	The arguments postulate that the UK should not retain nuclear generation because of the following issues. The anti-nuclear lobby claims that we do not know what to do with the waste, but that is not true. There are no technical or scientific obstacles to radioactive waste disposal, as we have heard; rather, the obstacles are principally political, and in some cases legal.
	The second claim is that nuclear is not a low-carbon technology. That is not scientifically true, by any objective measure. Much is said about nuclear power's hidden CO2 emissions, caused by uranium mining, transportation and so on. However, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has stated that nuclear power's operating lifetime emissions are not only lower than those of coal and gas, but lower than those of wind turbines.
	Thirdly, it is claimed that nuclear power is expensive. Again, we know that that is not true and that the economics of nuclear continue to improve, as oil and gas prices continue to rise. Currently, nuclear generation is cheaper than gas electricity generation.
	The fourth lie is that the decommissioning of new nuclear reactors would be expensive. However, it is neither fair nor accurate to compare the decommissioning of new nuclear facilities to the current decommissioning of nuclear facilities. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) said, the principal legacy cost comes from our military programme.
	It is claimed that there is insufficient uranium in the world to satisfy global demand. This is not true. There is as much uranium in the world today as there is tin. Both the International Atomic Energy Agency and the OECD have estimated that there is 500 years' worth of supply. However, I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), the chair of the all-party group on nuclear energy, that reprocessing is key. We must reprocess, and I commend the Government on keeping the reprocessing option open.
	It is claimed that building reactors takes too long to have any effect upon climate change. That is one of the myths currently circulating that needs to be nailed right here and now. The people responsible for building and designing reactors claim that from first pour to criticality—that is, to reactors coming online—can take three years. People will say, "We've heard these promises from the nuclear industry before," and they would be right to say that. However, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd has built six reactors since 1991. The longest took AECL six and a half years, while the quickest took four years, so I am optimistic about that.
	It is claimed that new nuclear reactors will lead to weapons proliferation, but in fact the opposite is true in the western world. New nuclear reactors can solve our proliferation problems. By way of an example, tens of thousands of tonnes of uranium oxide are stored at the Sellafield site in my constituency, with something in the region of 100 tonnes of plutonium oxide. Anyone who has read the recent Royal Society report will have noted the recommendation that that should be turned into fuel, which can then be burnt in nuclear reactors to produce CO2-free electricity. That is an eminently sensible solution.
	It is claimed that wind and wave power technologies are more sustainable. They clearly are not.
	Briefly, before my time runs out, there are two more arguments, but when I hear these hoary old chestnuts, I know that the game is well and truly up for the anti-nuclear lobby. One is that nuclear reactors are a terrorist target. However, the fact is that the nuclear industry has existed since the end of the second world war, through a series of international crises. Nuclear facilities are among the safest facilities known to mankind.

David Heath: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) thinks that nuclear reactors are more or less safe than skyscrapers, which did not represent a terrorist target until recently. However, that is an aside.
	I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State that, 20 years ago, I was a member of the feasibility study for the Severn tidal power group. I retain my enthusiasm for tidal power and I hope that the Government will move quickly to put something together to harness the power of the tides in the Severn estuary.
	I am afraid that this will inflame the considerable number of pro-nuclear colleagues present, but I was also leader of the Somerset county council that led the opposition in the 1980s to the pressurised water reactor of Hinkley C. By deploying arguments that were based not on the bad science of the time but on sound economics, by exposing the then bogus economics of the nuclear industry and by examining the issue of waste, we succeeded in having a moratorium placed on the building of new nuclear power stations for 20 years. I am proud of that, and I do not resile for one moment from the case that I made then and that is still relevant now.
	We have to keep returning to the issue of waste. Until there is a satisfactory solution to the disposal of waste, I am afraid that there will be a serious question mark against nuclear power. I noted the convolutions of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), who dug not so much a hole for himself, as a geological repository, in trying to avoid the question that the Secretary of State quite properly put to him. I know where the Secretary of State stands and where my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) stands. However, I have no idea where the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton stands, other than perhaps in a position from which he can give two opposing answers depending on whom he is speaking to—whether it be Zac Goldsmith or his hon. Friends in this place.
	I do not want to pursue that issue, however, because I want to put one narrow point to the Minister for Energy—I am glad that he is in the Chamber, because I want him to take notes and listen carefully. My point is about micro-hydro power, about which he knows I am enthusiastic. Micro-hydro power is a growth sector in my constituency, where we are bringing old mill buildings and water wheels back into use with new hydro-turbine capacity. That will be enormously valuable in environmental and social terms. It will make a genuine contribution. We now have several well established groups doing this.
	A particular issue relating to the Bill and to the renewables obligation consultation is the way in which micro-hydro is treated in terms of the allocation of double ROCs—renewable obligation certificates. Double ROCs are going to be made available for water turbines and other renewables with a declared net capacity of 50 kW or less. There is a gap between that declared capacity and the capacity of 100 kW or more at which commercial capacity begins. That will create a perverse disincentive for people who are installing such turbines.
	I want to explain this to the Minister. My constituent, Anthony Battersby, has recently installed water turbines in his mill at Tellisford. It is a very successful installation. Its declared net capacity is 55 kW, which is very inconvenient in the context of the Government's proposals. It will generate about 280,000 kWh per year, for which the income, including its single ROC, would be about £26,600. A similar site with a declared net capacity of 50 kW—5 kW less—would generate about 231,000 kWh per year, for which it would have a double ROC and earnings of about £33,500. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out that the station generating 17 per cent. less electricity will receive 26 per cent. more money. That does not seem to be a sensible incentive.
	The problem is that that arrangement will discourage new entrants into this area of microgeneration. I know at least six more mill owners in the Frome area who would like to install this kind of micro-hydro arrangement. The maximum capacity would be about 55 to 60 kW, producing a total of about 1,500 mWh per year. However, under the new rules, it is unlikely that any of them will install to the full capacity, which would result in a loss of 400 mWh a year of renewable capacity. That does not seem to be good or sensible policy.
	I think that Ofgem has a policy that all types of microgeneration should have the same definition in relation to capacity. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me on that. That does not seem to make sense when comparing photovoltaics, which have a maximum capacity, with water turbines, which have a slightly higher capacity. I understand that micro-hydro in Northern Ireland and Scotland is defined as having a capacity of up to 1.25 mW, which is different from other microgeneration forms in those areas. That suggests that there is a discrepancy between Northern Ireland and Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales on the other. I think that England and Wales have got it wrong. Will the Minister look carefully at this, to see whether it could be changed before the Bill comes into force, so as not to provide a perverse disincentive to a valuable part of the microgeneration spectrum?

Linda Riordan: I want to make some points about fuel poverty, which will be similar to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main). The background to our debate is the fuel poverty suffered by one in six families in the country: 4.4 million families, 3 million in England alone and many of those in my Halifax constituency. According to the consumer group Energywatch, more than a tenth of people's income is spent on utility bills. Meanwhile, British Gas has announced a 15 per cent. increase in its bills, and others suppliers—EDF and npower—have raised their prices by 27 per cent. That is unacceptable, but the unaccountable nature of those bodies means that they can get away with increases that hit the sick, the elderly and the poor most. A constituent wrote to me last week to ask
	"When was the last time my salary increased by 27 per cent.?"
	I fear that these price increases will send many of my constituents into fuel poverty. We need action to bring the utilities into line. We cannot sustain circumstances in which two thirds of British households are paying more, and many vulnerable groups are afraid to heat their homes. I must remind Ministers that there is a real danger that we will not be in a position to eradicate fuel poverty by 2010, which—as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood—is a legal obligation.
	May I make a plea? First, we should adequately fund the Warm Front programme which provides grants for poor households to insulate their homes. Secondly, we should ensure that utilities have an obligation to make their customers aware of social tariffs. Thirdly, we need a wide-ranging Government inquiry into the home energy market.
	What upsets me most about the Bill is that, unlike the 2003 energy White Paper, it makes no reference to how we can begin to end fuel poverty. That is a lost opportunity, and one of which I and other Labour Members will doubtless be reminded when we are campaigning on the doorstep. It seems to me that energy companies are placing more importance on maximising their profits than on a willingness to offer subsidised tariffs to poorer households to help with their bills. That issue affects Halifax today. We need action now to ensure that another generation of people are not sucked into fuel poverty. I call on the Government to make social tariffs compulsory if the reluctance to agree them voluntarily continues. I find it grotesque that the companies to which I have referred made £2 billion in six months last year.

Stephen Crabb: I intend to focus on some of the provisions that are actually in the Bill, particularly those dealing with gas import and storage infrastructure. If I have time, I shall say a little about the reforms of the renewables obligation.
	In our energy debates in the House, much of the background noise—which has been heard at several points this afternoon—relates to the theme of energy security and, specifically, reliance on energy imports. The phrase "over-reliance on imports from unstable regions", or variations on it, is heard time and again in the House when we discuss energy policy. We also see it in early-day motions in which various Members promote their pet policies or projects. It is wheeled out to justify everything from reinvestment in deep coal mining in the United Kingdom to renewables projects to the requirement for a new generation of nuclear power plants. I do not dispute that there may be valid reasons in favour of all those, but so often when the phrase is used the implication is that energy independence equates to energy security. Obviously indigenous sources of fuel and energy have a role to play in a balanced and secure energy policy, but it is simplistic to say that complete reliance on those sources will guarantee energy security.
	Partly as a result of short memories and partly because of our 30 years' experience of the abundant blessings of North sea oil and gas, we in Britain have a peculiar and somewhat irrational fear of energy imports. What is happening in the United Kingdom now and will continue to develop in the next 10 or 20 years is, in fact, no different from what many successful industrialised countries have faced for years: reliance on countries overseas, or outside their borders, for a large proportion of their primary energy requirements.
	What is happening to oil and gas as a result of the decline in production from the UK continental shelf is similar in some respects to what has happened to coal. Although last year coal became a more significant producer of electricity even than gas, 75 per cent. of our coal supplies are imported from countries all over the world at economic prices. It is, I think, difficult to argue seriously that there has been a diminution in the security of coal supply in the United Kingdom because we have become a heavy importer of coal. I believe that something similar could happen in the case of natural gas, as long as the necessary gas import and storage infrastructure can be constructed and brought on stream in a timely way. The Bill seeks to answer part of the question involved in that.
	Whatever criticisms may be made about delays in energy policy over the past 10 years and an overload of consultation, it should be recognised that thanks to a well-functioning liberalised gas market and the exemption on third-party access to gas infrastructure, the private sector has been able to present new project proposals that will create flexibility and diversity in Britain's energy system. That is what I believe energy security is all about. I hope that the Bill will encourage the industry, and provide a framework within which it can produce even more project proposals that will create further options and flexibility in the system, particularly in the area of liquefied natural gas.
	The technology for LNG is not new, but its recent emergence as one of the energy solutions for the early 21st century represents an exciting development. LNG provides a means of releasing stranded gas supplies and transporting them economically to world markets where those supplies are needed. Many Governments around the world are currently either investing in LNG infrastructure or studying proposals to bring that on stream in their countries.
	Being an island nation, the UK is particularly well placed to offer a wide variety of suitable locations for both offshore and onshore LNG unloading facilities. Already in the UK in recent years, there has been huge investment in LNG facilities on the western and eastern seaboards. In Milford Haven in my constituency, two major LNG projects are under development: the Dragon project which is a tie-up between Petronas and British Gas, and the large South Hook LNG project involving ExxonMobil and Qatargas. There are other projects as well, such as those in the Isle of Grain and Teesside. These projects often utilise redundant refineries and other facilities.
	One of the Bill's aims is to create the right regulatory conditions to bring forward even more of this type of infrastructure, particularly offshore LNG infrastructure. I have heard people question whether there is a need for even more LNG infrastructure and whether we are entering a scenario of over-supply, especially given the investment that there has been in pipeline capacity to serve the UK. However, I believe that a more relevant question than whether there is over-supply, is what is going on in the marketplace: is there an appetite in the marketplace for more investment in LNG capacity, and are artificial barriers at work to create disincentives that prevent that investment? From studying the responses to the consultation of the Secretary of State and Minister on this issue, it is clear that the mood in the industry is very much that a disincentive is at play preventing the right level of investment in new infrastructure. The Bill tries to go some way towards rectifying that.
	Although I am generally relaxed about Britain becoming a major importer of gas, as long as certain conditions are fulfilled, one area that does concern me is the need for much greater provision of gas storage facilities to provide a buffer against potential supply interruptions and to smooth demand peaks. In previous parliamentary questions I have tabled and in points I have raised in previous debates, I have tried to establish whether the Minister and his Department believe that there is an appropriate level of gas storage infrastructure that we need to reach, given the projected level of gas import reliance. He has the figures to hand, but I have still not been able to tease out of him whether he thinks there is such a level. I think everyone would recognise that there is nowhere near enough gas storage infrastructure in the UK. There is an appetite in the industry to create new storage infrastructure, but there are various barriers—the Bill seeks to address them. There is an important wider point to do with the regime that will govern gas storage in the UK in future. Might there be an EU-wide stocking obligation? Might something similar to the crude oil stocking obligation be at work? I would certainly be interested to learn of the Minister's thoughts on the correct level of storage infrastructure.
	I have run out of time, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Colin Challen: I will certainly obey that instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says: the Opposition Members are just as divided as us. The fact that we are more interested and more persistent is what drives our numbers up.
	As I have said, the Bill we have been presented with today is a brilliant masterstroke. It covers all the points and presses all the buttons. I am of course referring to my Climate Change (Sectoral Targets) Bill, which I presented earlier this afternoon. If anyone would like to know more about it, then please get in touch.
	I would like to tell the son of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) a story, although perhaps later in his life. It is the rather more frightening tale about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which somewhat personifies the debate this afternoon. On the one hand there is a Dr. Jekyll, a kindly doctor who brings his renewable balm to his patients and cures them of their diseases. I was about to say that he did not need to use bandages as he could just use banding, but if I were to try to crack such a joke obviously it would fall a bit flat. On the other hand, there is Mr. Hyde, who is a boastful, swaggering person, and who personifies the nuclear lobby. He makes a great number of accusations against his detractors. In this Chamber, he has, so to speak, described them as sneerers and liars, and as unbalanced—we have heard it said this afternoon that to criticise nuclear power is to be unbalanced. It is unfortunate that that bad spirit has entered into the debate, as we should be looking at the facts of the matter. We should be considering it from all points from view, especially the climate change point of view, which I think I can speak for and on which we need urgent remedies.
	Would nuclear crowd out renewables? To answer that, we must look at the record. It is difficult to get precise figures, but the estimable German analyst and leading MP in the Bundestag, Hermann Scheer, has recently written a book on energy autonomy and he goes into this in great detail. He has shown that the OECD countries' spend on research and development on nuclear between 1974 and 1992 was $168 billion. In the same period, the spend on research and development on renewables was £22 billion. He reckons that the total spend on nuclear research and development globally to the present day is about $1 trillion, and that over the last 30 years—which I know is not quite the same time scale—the total spend on renewables is $40 billion.
	It seems evident from that that the nuclear industry has claimed a great deal of expenditure, and yet it has not delivered its promise. Mr. Scheer also goes on to quote International Atomic Energy Agency figures. In 1974, the IAEA predicted that by 2000 4.45 million MW of nuclear would have been installed worldwide. By 1976, the same agency, which exists to promote nuclear energy, dropped that prediction to 2.3 million MW. By 1978, the figure was down to 800,000 MW. Today, it reports that total nuclear capacity is a meagre 300,000 MW. For all the expenditure, which has increased and increased and increased, we have seen less and less and less for our money. Indeed, one is reminded of the increasing costs and the unpredictability of the whole situation.
	I will, perhaps, give way for one intervention, to any Member who wishes to object to what I am saying or question my figures. Two years ago, we were told that the cost of dealing with waste would be £56 billion. Now the figure given is £72 billion. I bet anybody who is pro-nuclear one day's pay that they cannot tell me what the figure will be in two years' time. Will it still be £72 billion? I suspect not.

Colin Challen: I understand that Herr Scheer was referring to the civil sector. I accept my hon. Friend's point that there has been a lot of blurring of the lines between the civil and military sectors. That could not possibly happen again, but let us just watch what happens in Iran and learn a few lessons from it.
	I have a great deal of time for Herr Scheer, who has helped to pioneer the German approach. Let us consider time scales. I utterly reject the claim that those who are concerned with climate change are forgoing this golden opportunity. The intergovernmental panel on climate change says that by 2015 carbon emissions must have peaked and must then be reduced. There is not a great deal that any new technology could do to meet that demand, but Germany's renewables Act, which was introduced a decade ago, propelled, to a great extent, by Hermann Scheer, has delivered so much in 10 years—one just needs to examine the figures to see that. If we had approached even 5 or 10 per cent. of the German effort in 10 years, we would be taking a rather more sanguine view about that 2015 target. Thus, I reject the accusations being made in this place that anyone who speaks against nuclear power is somehow complicit in the continuing tragedy of climate change. It must also be said—some hon. Members have mentioned this—that in that period of time the Germans have created 300,000 jobs and an export industry in renewable technologies worth €2 billion a year. They have also saved €5 billion on avoided fossil fuel imports, so there has been a net benefit to the German economy of €7 billion.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) mentioned the role of the IAEA. At the Bali climate change conference last month, I was compelled to attend an IAEA seminar, not least because its title was "Nuclear power and sustainable development". I wondered how it would be able to explain that oxymoron. It was hosted by that august organisation, which at the time said that it was its job to arrange such things; it not only regulates but promotes. A map of Africa, the poorest continent on the planet, was displayed, and we were told that those countries were apparently queuing up to purchase nuclear power. People were in there trying to sell the damn thing.
	A Dr. Ferenc Toth—not toff—from the IAEA gave us a rundown of the 11 reasons why it thought that nuclear power had suffered so much in the past 20 years. In the order that he gave them, the reasons were that nuclear power had been hit by the following: economic restructuring; increased energy-efficiency measures after the oil shocks; slower demand; excess capacity; liberalisation and privatisation; the oil price collapse—if the price goes up, nuclear collapses, but if the price goes down, it also collapses; the dash for gas; the Three Mile Island disaster; and high interest rates. Tenth on the list was the little word "Chernobyl". Finally, he said that nuclear had been hit by the break-up of the Soviet Union.
	It seems that any kind of economic uncertainty or economic condition could lead to the downfall of nuclear power. I ask the proselytisers for nuclear power to explain how they anticipate a stable economic period when these nuclear power stations can be delivered occurring, given the current economic circumstances. I cannot foresee such a period myself.
	As has been mentioned, the UK has a low ranking—in the EU only Luxembourg and Malta are behind us—on the amount of renewable energy that it contributes to its energy requirements. Our figure is 1.75 per cent. of our overall contribution, which is rather less than the EU average of 7 per cent. The German figure is far higher. We must be careful not to crowd out renewables, as the figures demonstrate has happened in the past. As I have said before, the timing for renewables is still within the window of opportunity to tackle climate change.

Martin Horwood: Speaking from the packed Liberal Democrat Benches, may I say that the Government have failed to grasp the scale and pace of change in energy policy necessary to protect us against environmental disaster? The first and easiest route to begin closing the energy gap is, of course, energy efficiency. Various hon. Members have pointed out that the Bill is a missed opportunity to move efficiency forward radically at household level. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), in particular, pointed out the very high potential for smart metering to reduce carbon emissions.
	I agree with Centrica, which says that it is
	"disappointed that the Energy Bill contains no provisions to mandate the roll out of smart meters...Without a mandate from Government it is highly unlikely that energy suppliers would be able to facilitate a roll out to 45 million UK households in the timescale envisaged. A mandate would give the industry the 'green light' it needs to initiate a coordinated and managed roll out programme."
	Just as with BP's carbon capture project, the private sector was ahead of the game and had put the work in, only to be tripped up by the Government.
	I am afraid to say that the same is true of renewables. Every time I meet business people who are involved in the renewable energy sector, I see people straining to unleash the potential of wind power, geothermal power, solar-thermal power, photovoltaics, combined heat and power, microgeneration of various kinds, sustainable biomass, wave power and tidal power of various kinds, not only in the Severn estuary but around the UK.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan), the Conservative spokesman, seemed to denigrate renewables, implying that they would make an inconsistent contribution to base load electricity supply. I do not think he realises that promoted on a large scale, with diverse technologies in diverse locations and on diverse scales, renewable energies become some of the most secure and reliable energy sources of all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) pointed out, tides are, after all, pretty predictable. It is a much tougher job to bomb 100 windmills than one nuclear power station.
	The Government are determined to include nuclear power in their plans to plug the energy gap, instead of adopting the more sensible combination of energy efficiency, renewables, and carbon capture and storage. Various Labour Members, including the hon. Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Copeland (Mr. Reed), thought that the only consideration was that nuclear was a lower-carbon technology than current fossil fuel energy generation. Although true, that is not the only consideration.
	In an intervention on the hon. Member for South Thanet, I cited one of the 40 leading energy and climate scientists who warned the previous Prime Minister against nuclear power in 2006. Those scientists also said that nuclear waste would have to be isolated from the environment
	"for timescales which dwarf that of human civilisation."
	We have no concept of what generations far into the future will make of the poisonous legacy that we are leaving them through nuclear power, and we still have no plan for what to do with the previous generation of radioactive waste.
	The Conservative spokesman seemed to think that this was essentially an economic problem, but I do not think that it is. I think that it is an ethical problem. Because it leaves these problems, about which we cannot know anything, for future generations, nuclear new-build is not only unsustainable, unaffordable and unsafe, but will be positively immoral.

Martin Horwood: On the subject of British jobs, if we became a world centre for renewable energy—for example, in carbon capture and storage, for which we are uniquely positioned to have the first-mover advantage—there would be enormous potential to replace any jobs that might be lost in the nuclear sector with jobs in clean technologies.
	Better by far than nuclear is carbon capture and storage. It is an important transitional technology. Stern suggested that it could constitute 28 per cent. of carbon mitigation worldwide by 2050. It could inadvertently offer encouragement to the gas and coal generation industries that they could stave off the replacement of fossil fuel technologies with renewables, so it is vital that in parallel we offer sufficient incentive to use renewables. Carbon capture and storage still creates a waste product that remains a threat to our planet, even if it is captured and stored. Nevertheless, carbon capture and storage is enormously preferable to unclean fossil fuel generation and to nuclear power. It is disappointing, therefore, that the Government's approach to carbon capture and storage has so far been pretty clumsy.
	I was not convinced by the Secretary of State's reply to my earlier intervention on the BP project, and on why such technologies were excluded from the competition announced in the 2007 Budget, which was restricted to post-combustion coal-fired technology. That pulled the rug from under BP's Peterhead project, which was about extracting CO2 from natural gas and pumping in into the Miller oilfield, and from about half of the other carbon capture and storage projects that were then under development. The BP project could have been online by 2010; that was a major own goal by the Government.
	WWF has pointed out more inconsistency on carbon capture and storage in the Bill. Why is the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform responsible for the carbon stored? We are dealing with a dangerous waste product that should logically be the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, not least because DEFRA proposed exactly that for its marine management organisation in the White Paper on the marine Bill published last March. That highlights the urgency of getting on with providing adequate protection for our marine environment.
	The best option of all is renewables. We have the powerful example of German support for renewables by guaranteeing a price for energy generated from them—the so-called feed-in tariffs. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that whatever the merits of feed-in tariffs, we needed to consider what would work best in the UK. I waited with anticipation for an explanation of why wind and heat in the UK were somehow different from wind and heat in Germany, but instead we simply heard praise for the clarity and consistency of the German Government. I agree, but no substantial arguments were produced against feed-in tariffs. I look forward to hearing some from the Minister for Energy when he winds up.
	The truth is that the reason why Germany reached the target of generating 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable energy before we reached 5 per cent., although Germany has fewer natural resources, is that the Germans adopted feed-in tariffs while we stuck doggedly to a renewables obligation regime that has not really come up with the goods, especially in bringing forward new renewable technologies. The percentage of the renewables obligation met by buy-outs has gradually increased, suggesting that the obligation has increased faster than renewable capacity, and has not really worked. Meanwhile, we have a catastrophic hotch-potch of grants programmes.
	We are probably all aware of the low-carbon buildings programme, which was cut back for households to the point where it ran out within hours every month. It has now been suspended, and has not been replaced. Hon. Members may be less aware of the community energy programme, which provided a few tens of millions of pounds, supposedly to support small innovative projects with local government. That was a worthy initiative, but unfortunately it was wound up in March last year with no prospective replacement.
	Support for renewable energy at local and community level has been a real mixed bag. The Bill makes some important provisions for future energy supply and energy security. It also represents missed opportunity, increased nuclear liabilities and botched plans for carbon capture and storage, and it has failed to promote renewable energy adequately at national, household or community level.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Government are not going to set out and build the reactors, as Governments did in the past with Magnox. All they can do—as they have rightly sought to do—is to create an environment in which they will positively back proposals for nuclear power if they can be carried out within the tight constrictions of financial self-stability, or, to put it simply, without subsidy.
	I think that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton is trying to say that sooner rather than later we will need a decision on where such developments will be located and what the costs will be. Indeed, someone asked earlier what proportion of the total costs of any given site will be ascribed to the first company that builds a nuclear power plant. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman will not vote against the Government on those grounds this evening. I do not think that it is reasonable to ask the Government to answer those questions right now. They have answered the big question by saying that they will co-operate with and make possible the building of a new series of nuclear plants if that can be accomplished within the tight financial constraints that have been set out. That seems to be the right decision, on balance.
	Some of my hon. Friends who have spoken have a loathing for nuclear energy—I would not say that they all had a pathological hatred of it, which was the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed)—that can be shared by others. However, those of us who, on balance, favour nuclear energy—it is a balanced decision—say to them that it is not about charge and counter-charge, or suspicion about lies or misrepresentation.
	The simple fact is that the hazards and uncertainties that surround renewable sources, such as tidal power, and carbon capture and storage, in this country—they are almost unique to this country—are at least as great in their uncertainty as nuclear power. Let us take the example of tidal power from the Severn estuary: no one knows yet what the cost or time scale for that might be. However, it is clear in all areas where we have embarked on positive Government action—in particular with wind farms, offshore and onshore energy—British industry, consumers and generators have not responded. Barely 2 per cent. of our energy needs are supplied by renewables, compared with the better progress in Germany.

John Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). It would appear that the arrogance of Mr. Hyde, who was mentioned earlier, is not reserved for those who are pro-nuclear. No one has a monopoly on correctness: we should listen to all the arguments, and all contributions should be heard with a degree of humility.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) said, I am the chairman of the all-party nuclear energy group. As such, I accept that I might be said to be pro-nuclear, but I also support renewables and clean coal technology. I am willing to try anything that will ensure that this country and the people who live in it have a sustainable energy supply. I am willing to listen to all the arguments, and to support options other than nuclear—as I have done on many occasions in the past. It is important to remember that the debate is not about nuclear versus renewables.
	I was once asked why I had become so involved in nuclear energy, given that I come from Glasgow and that there is no nuclear power station on my doorstep. All that is true, and not even one constituent of mine is an employee of the nuclear industry, so how did I get involved? The fact is that my friend Bill Tynan, who used to be the MP for Hamilton, South, was short of numbers for his all-party group and asked me to go along to a meeting. That is what happens with most hon. Members who join all-party groups—we are doing someone a favour.
	I went along to the meeting and, although I cannot now recall what was discussed, I had an open mind about nuclear. I have never been a unilateralist, and I was willing to listen to the arguments, even though I had reservations about nuclear energy. What I heard was not quite what I was expecting, so I went to other meetings and gathered more information. Eventually, I knew a bit about the nuclear industry and had some understanding of how it could be used for good.
	At the time, my party was not exactly in favour of nuclear power. Indeed, I am quite taken by how many pro-nuclear contributions have been made from these Benches. That would not have happened when I came into the House seven years ago, and I am pleased that people are listening to the argument. Some of the contributions in support of the Government's proposals have been made by people who were anti-nuclear in the past. I hope that they have taken on board what has been said and that they have changed their minds for all the right reasons, and not just because many of their constituents are employed in the nuclear sector. I worry about the people employed by such power stations and the communities that those power stations help to provide for, and it is important that we do so.
	I want to talk about security of supply. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb)—unfortunately, he and all the other Conservative Members are no longer in the Chamber—said that there was an unjustifiable fear about the supply of gas to this country. He asked why we had to go down the road of nuclear when we could get gas in fairly cheaply. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what has happened in relation to oil and gas. Twenty years ago, would we have forecast the oil problems with Iran and Iraq? Would we have forecast the ongoing cuts to oil production in Nigeria? Would we have realised that the Russians would be suppliers of gas and that they would cut off the gas to their neighbour to make the point that they wanted money? Would we have realised that the pipeline coming from Russia through the Caucasus would be attacked by people who were rioting? We did not know those things, but we know them now. That was why the Government took on board the need to look at a balanced and sustainable energy policy for this country. One problem with renewables is that we cannot guarantee supply. I hope that that will be possible in the future, and I believe that we will meet our targets if we work hard at it. However, we must have a core supply, and I believe that nuclear must form part of that.
	There must also be investment in clean coal technology. That could be a winner for this country, and we could make a lot of money by supplying such technology to other countries. We must be at the sharp end of that technology's research and development, and I hope that that will bring money back to this country.
	Security of supply and service is the most important thing that the Government must address. No one would forgive any Government who allowed the lights to go out, whether that happened in 10 or 20 years' time. If we do not make the commitment now, we will not be able to get rid of our dependency on gas. Opposition Members were right to say that we will need to import more gas in the years to come. We have been building lots of storage tanks because, during the cold spell two years ago, we talked about the fact that there might be a shortage of energy due to a lack of gas supplies. Let us hope that the liquid gas storage points that we have been building will help us to overcome any problems that might be caused if we were to be held hostage to a foreign country.
	There are a few questions that my hon. Friend the Minister of Energy should answer in his winding-up speech. Many hon. Members have mentioned smart meters. Why are we not doing something about them, and can we raise that important matter in Committee? Fuel poverty and social tariffs are important and have been mentioned by several hon. Members. However, I will not talk about them in any detail because I will just be raising the same old questions.
	More than 100 tonnes of plutonium are stored at Sellafield, and I mentioned in a few interventions the MOX reprocessing system that could be built. I have seen what the MOX station in France can do, and I believe that we could go down the same road. That would certainly reduce the waste that we produce because we would be able to reuse fuel rods from nuclear power stations. My hon. Friend the Minister should be looking at the proposal much more carefully, and he should talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland to find out what could be done in his constituency to get the reprocessing unit up and running. That could also give back money to the country in general.
	Hon. Members have raised aspects of the Government's support and asked where the money will come from. They have asked whether companies want to invest in our nuclear industry. As chair of the all-party group on nuclear energy, I can tell the House that plenty of companies are lining up. They come to see me every other week and try to use me to get to Ministers so that they can attempt to get their power stations on line.
	It is true that the Finnish power station is overrunning, but it is a new station and one of its kind. It has nothing to do with the repository, which is separate—it just happens to be on the same site. Anyone who has seen the medium-level waste repository in Finland will have been more than a little impressed. If Finland is going down such a road, as Canada will—the Americans have already decided to do so, but it needs to get over legal problems—we in this country should do the same thing.

Mark Lazarowicz: As other Members have said, there is an immense potential for renewable energy in the UK. Our geographical location and features give us resources, particularly in wind, wave and tidal power, that few other countries enjoy.
	Unlike some hon. Members, I recognise that the Government's policies have helped us to begin to tap the potential for renewable energy. It is disappointing that only 5 per cent. of electricity is produced by renewable generation, but that is five times as much as was produced when the Government came to power. When one starts from a base of 1 per cent., it is not surprising that it takes a while to reach a higher figure. Practical steps have been taken by the Government. By contrast, some of those who criticise the Government's record on renewables were not supportive of renewable energy when they were in local government and had to decide whether or not to support renewable energy projects. We should bear that in mind when considering their sincerity in promoting practical forms of renewable energy.
	There is no doubt, however, that we could do a lot more with renewable energy, as is underlined by the example set by some of our European partners. They have set us an ambition to which we should aspire. As the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, that is not merely a matter of energy policy or environmental policy. There is a real opportunity for green jobs—a massive number of jobs on a long-term secure basis. For example, the wind industry worldwide is worth £12 billion a year and is growing at 30 per cent. a year. There are also opportunities in the developing renewables technologies. I have in my constituency the headquarters of Pelamis Wave Power, which is a pioneering wave turbine technology company. That is already bringing jobs to my constituency and others in Scotland. We need to do more in the UK to draw from such potential.
	The test for the Bill is whether it helps to advance renewable energy in the UK and whether it helps to bring about a step change in the take-up of renewable energy in the UK. The mechanism for bands for renewable obligation certificates, if applied in an imaginative way, can help to release the potential of the new pioneering technologies in renewable energy. I note, for example, that the British Wind Energy Association strongly supports changes to the renewable obligations system and the introduction of a banded system, even though that is likely to benefit technologies other than its own.
	I recognise that there are questions about whether the renewables obligations certificate route is the best way to tap the potential of smaller producers and of microgeneration. If I may modestly refer to my private Member's Bill a year and a half ago, that included provisions which required the Government to consult the industry to encourage it to bring forward proposals for microgeneration by domestic producers. If that does not result in the industry presenting practical proposals to promote microgeneration, the feed-in tariff is a mechanism that should be available, and it should apply particularly to small scale and domestic producers.
	I was a little concerned that the Secretary of State suggested that the promotion of renewable heat was some way down the agenda for major shifts in Government policy. Again, I refer modestly to my Bill, which more than a year ago placed a specific obligation on the Government to promote renewable heat. I would not want to encourage the Minister's friends in Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace to go to the courts again and demand even more judicial reviews, but there is a policy to oblige the Government to promote renewable heat, which I am sure the Minister will bear in mind.
	Some of those involved in renewable energy suggest that there is a need to make it a specific primary duty of Ofgem to promote both renewables and energy efficiency. It would have been good to see that in the Bill. Perhaps it can be inserted at a later stage of the Bill's passage through Parliament.
	On energy conservation and energy efficiency, it would be good to get an update from the Minister on our efforts to get the EU to allow us to reduce the rate of VAT on energy-saving appliances. That was mentioned in the Budget last year and it would be useful to know what progress we are making.
	Promoting renewables offers a more effective and quicker way of meeting our energy needs than would a new generation of civil nuclear power stations. I do not have time to enter into that debate, but I have not been persuaded that we need to go along the road of civil nuclear power. Like others who have spoken, I have looked at the example of Finland, whose new nuclear power station is well over budget and behind time. Despite the rigged pricing mechanism and subsidies to make it possible, it is still not meeting the objectives claimed for it by those who supported its development.
	Finally, I shall touch on an issue that has been mentioned a number of times in the debate and in Parliament over the past few weeks: fuel poverty. In the past few days, we have again seen more increases, which have hit some of the most vulnerable in our society. I recognise that the Government are having meetings and discussions, but we need action now to respond to the damage that the increases could cause to hundreds of thousands of people in this country. That damage is taking place now and will take place in the next few weeks; we cannot leave the issue for discussions, however urgent, that will not result in specific policies until later this year.
	We can address fuel poverty in a number of ways, but a comprehensive policy to encourage the take-up of social tariffs is part of the answer. There is clear evidence, already referred to today, that there could be a much better take-up of such tariffs if there were a more co-ordinated policy. There is certainly a case for mandatory minimum standards for social tariffs; such standards should have been in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will introduce them during its passage.
	There is a real crisis affecting some of the poorest in our communities, and we have to treat it with the urgency that it deserves if we are to address not only the financial consequences for those who suffer from fuel poverty, but the health effects on them. In extreme cases, fuel poverty can have life-or-death consequences for those who cannot meet their own needs as a result of the sharply increasing prices that we are seeing at the moment.

Alan Simpson: The most controversial thing about the Bill is the elements that are not included in it. The Bill makes no mention of feed-in tariffs for electricity or gas, nor of renewable heat. It does not really address fuel poverty issues. It does not mention any imposition of regulated social tariffs. No clause addresses the urgent need for Ofgem to be restructured and the Bill does not honestly address the issue of who will pick up the costs of the disposal of waste.
	To be fair to them, the Liberal Democrats were right to say that as it stands the Bill is a big-energy rather than a coherent-energy Bill. I hope that in Committee and on Report all its sins of omission will be brought forward in new clauses so that it is strengthened into a Bill that is genuinely appropriate to our time. Let us be clear about the time in which we are living. The intergovernmental panel on climate change warned the Bali climate change conference that the world has a window of opportunity of perhaps no longer than six to eight years in which to make profound changes to the nature of our energy systems. If we do not deliver those changes within that period, we are stuffed, because the feedback mechanisms of the planet are likely to outstrip any of the intervention measures that we put off until after the period has elapsed. Within the same big-picture scenario, petroleum experts argue about when we will hit peak oil and when oil output will start to decrease—will it happen in 2011, or not until 2015? The argument is now about when rather than whether.
	Several Members have raised their concerns about the 15 to 27 per cent. increases in energy prices charged to UK consumers today and about the fact that the 70 per cent. increases in energy charges in the past three years have reversed the progress that was being made in the Government's fuel poverty eradication programme. At one stage, the number of households living in fuel poverty had got down to just over 1 million; now we are back to 4 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) was right to say that as soon as the latest round of price increases kicks in, at least another half a million households will be added to those who are going back into fuel poverty.
	At the same time, the Prime Minister rightly signs Britain up to the European Union target of 20 per cent. of our energy supplies from renewable sources by 2020. If, for practical purposes, we set the target at 15 per cent., that will probably mean that between 25 and 30 per cent. of that will come from renewable electricity by 2020. Our starting position is that 1.75 per cent. of the UK's energy needs are supplied from renewable sources. I have a diagram setting out the European league table, which shows the UK ahead only of Malta—a record of leadership that makes our recent submissions to the Eurovision song contest look positively inspirational. We are leading from the back in this process, and the question is how we get out of the position that we find ourselves in.
	I want to spend a little time on nuclear. I do not think that a single nuclear power station will be built. The House should remember that Margaret Thatcher promised to build 10 nuclear power stations and ended up building one. In the past eight years, the world collectively has built one new nuclear power station. The problems in Finland, where the power station programme is two or three years behind schedule, reflect the fact that over the past two years there has been a 300 per cent. increase in the costs related to nuclear construction. There is a six-year waiting list for coolant pumps for nuclear reactors, and only two places on the planet produce the reactor vessels needed for nuclear power stations. It is just not going to work. When people start to see the disposal costs and who has to pick them up, the Government of the day will conclude, given the other problems that we have on our plate, that there are only so many lost causes that we can support. The nuclear programme will not materialise, but it will distract us from the more serious choices that we need to make in terms of renewables and fuel poverty.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West asked why the renewables obligation has not worked. I might be the only Member—or one of the few Members—who generates clean energy from my home and who is entitled to claim RO certificates, and I have to tell the House that it is a bloody nightmare to try to do so. I have been unsuccessful in making my way through the morass of regulations. In the assessment of the Audit Commission and the EU, the renewables obligation is a phenomenally expensive way of doing things inefficiently.
	By comparison, the German system of feed-in tariffs works so much better. It would be immeasurably better for me and my neighbours if we knew that, as in Germany, we would be paid four times the market price for clean energy that we supplied for a guaranteed period of 20 years. If one talks to people in any of the German cities that are pioneering Germany's drive to double the EU 2020 commitment, they will say that it is citizen-driven. It would be an act of political suicide for any German political party to talk of revoking that legislation.
	Germany's difficulty is in keeping up with the momentum; ours is in finding a momentum. I hope that we will do that in building a serious engagement with renewables. That must, however, include the notion of renewable heat and gas. I went to see a plant in Munich where people take domestic or crop waste and put it not into incineration plants but biodigesters, where they harvest the methane and then use the existing network to pipe the gas back to provide energy to the estates from which they collected the waste. They are credited for that as having contributed to a closed cycle of taking a problem and turning it into a solution, which they were able to do by changing the nature of the energy market. That is the significance of the feed-in tariff system—it shifts power from corporations receiving subsidies to citizens—and the driving force behind the 50 countries worldwide that have opted for the renewables obligation.
	Let me race quickly through my two remaining points. The first is the need to change Ofgem. When we asked Ofgem where it stood on social tariffs and enforcement, it said that it was shining a light on the problem. I think that it meant shining a light in those areas where the sun never shines, because it does absolutely nothing in that respect. We must ensure that Ofgem puts at the forefront of its energy policy the duty to pursue demand reduction and to address and deliver on the targets for fuel poverty, renewables and cuts in carbon emissions.
	Germany has reduced its carbon emissions by 97 million tonnes a year through its feed-in tariffs. In doing so, it has been able to tackle issues that relate to the poor. That is my final point. We know that 4.5 million households live in fuel poverty, but what does that mean in practical terms? Last year, 24,000 people died in this country of illnesses relating to fuel poverty. If we are to have an energy policy worth its salt, the poor have to be able to live to be part of it. If we fail in that, we have failed in everything.

Emily Thornberry: I would like to discuss many different aspects of the matter that we are considering. However, given the amount of time, I will focus on renewables, especially our potential for using wind power.
	Britain could be the Saudi Arabia of wind power. I understand that we have about 40 per cent. of Europe's wind, which we could use to improve our country. It is said that there is no point in relying on wind power, because what do we do on the day the wind does not blow? However, according to the UK Energy Research Council,
	"intermittent generation need not compromise electricity system reliability at any level of penetration foreseeable in Britain over the next 20 years."
	For those of us who do not have an engineering degree, I should perhaps go over some of the basics, because some of these things were beyond me. For those who think that a gigawatt is the brother of the Jabberwocky or something from a comic, it means roughly this. One kilowatt-hour of electricity is enough to power an electric bar fire for about an hour. One megawatt-hour will power 1,000 electric bar fires, while 1 gigawatt-hour will power 1 million electric bar fires for an hour. I will not make my whole speech in terms of electric bar fire units, but I hope that the House gets the idea, because that certainly helped me.
	The Minister for Energy said this morning that we need a sevenfold increase in renewable energy by 2020. Most of that will need to come from an increase in renewable electricity, which means an increase from 5 per cent. of electricity coming from renewables to between 30 and 40 per cent. How are we going to do that in 12 years? It sounds like a fantasy, but it is possible. That is what the Labour party is about—we are about achievable goals and we can do it, as long as we are bold. Denmark got up to 20 per cent. of renewables from a standing start a few years ago, and we can do as well as that.
	However, we need to make some difficult decisions and move some of the obstacles that we have put in our own way. I am glad that the Government have already set about getting rid of some of them. First, we have created a market for renewables and established the renewables obligations—obligations on energy companies to provide a proportion of their energy from renewable sources. Introducing banding will mean that 1 GW of energy produced by offshore wind, tidal or wave power will create more renewables obligation certificates than the equivalent from onshore and other renewables.
	Secondly, we have conducted two rounds of bids, in 2001 and 2003, to identify offshore sites for wind energy, amounting to 8 GW in total. Projects such as the London Array, the biggest wind farm in the world, have now been given the go-ahead through that process. In December, the Secretary of State extended the ambition for offshore wind, by announcing potentially 25 GW more in possible sites.
	Thirdly, the committee on climate change, to be created by the Climate Change Bill, will set out measures to allow us to hit our aim of a 60 per cent. cut—I hope an 80 per cent. cut soon—in carbon emissions by 2050. The committee will give much-needed guidance and advice, in order to ensure that we push the renewables agenda forward. Finally, the independent planning commission, contained in the Planning Bill, will play an important role in ensuring that applications for wind energy are dealt with swiftly and efficiently.
	However, we still have too many self-imposed obstacles in our way. The sites for offshore wind that were identified in 2001 and 2003 are taking too long to come to fruition, and no wonder when one considers all the hoops that applications have to jump through. First, the Government identify the areas. Secondly, the Crown Estate is given these and asks for bids for development. Thirdly, companies make bids. Fourthly, the Crown Estate gives exclusive rights to develop. Fifthly, the developers conduct an environmental assessment, which covers everything from bird migration and navigational routes to seals and the fishing industry, and so on.
	Then the developers put together their plans for development and another application is made to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to build. After that, permission to install and build is given. Only then can companies finalise their connection to the grid, so that the necessary equipment can be procured and work planned. Companies then need time to get their financial package together, which can slow down the time it takes to start building. Then building can start, but before that happens, there must be further planning permission for transmission, hence the lag. From what I understand, the problem is not just the putting up of the poles and wires—that also needs planning permission—but the building of substations and the reinforcement of lines where necessary.
	Ofgem needs to relax its policy on investment in the national grid, to allow a predict-and-provide approach, so that wind farms that are ready to go are not held back by a lack of capacity to get on to the grid. Ofgem's role needs to be examined, to give it stronger direction and ensure that we focus on sustainability, either by directives from the Secretary of State or by changing its objectives in statute. We also need to put an end to the ludicrous situations in which an offshore wind farm application has jumped through all the hoops only to be held up by an individual onshore council's planning committee, which is probably Lib Dem.
	The proposed independent planning commission will have an important role to play in making the passage of applications for major infrastructure projects quicker and easier. However, as I understand it, its role will be limited to 15 big projects or 25 smaller ones. Given that there are currently more than 200 applications for generators over 50 MW or for large pylons under sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, the IPC will surely need to have a larger capacity in order to help the development of wind farms to motor on.
	The present system is not working; 95 per cent. of applications for wind farms are not decided within the statutory 16-week period. Normally, 70 per cent. of planning applications are decided within 16 weeks, but for wind farms it is only 5 per cent., and most of those applications are rejected. So we need to ensure that the IPC has more capacity. Concern has also been expressed that the marine management organisation envisaged in the proposed marine Bill might give permissions on a different basis to that used by the IPC. Consistency is obviously important to the industry, if it is to develop properly.
	There is currently 7.5 to 8 GW of wind power stuck in the planning system, half of which is being held up by the Scottish Executive. That is not good enough. If we really want to push on with renewables, we need to have a strong heart. We need to be radical, and we must not be afraid. We can do this, and if we do, we might well find that the policy initiative to build new nuclear capacity will be seen to be a cul-de-sac. We do not need that nuclear power. If we do renewables properly, we will be able to fulfil all our needs. Let us also think of the good that it will do for us and for our industry.
	The Prime Minister said in November last year that we need vision and determination. He went on:
	"If Britain maintains its share of this growth there could be over a million people employed here in our environmental industries".
	Building a low-carbon economy will enable us to create thousands of jobs, and Britain is exactly the kind of country that can do that. We have the capacity and the skills to build planes for our defence forces, and we have a huge amount of wind potential in this country. We just need to take away the obstacles that we have put in place ourselves. Let us concentrate on doing that. Let us be bold and radical. Let us lead the fourth technical revolution. Let us get on with it.

David Chaytor: I am tempted immediately to invite interventions, because of the brilliant timekeeping and discipline shown by all my colleagues. I want to speak in support of the Bill. The Government are to be congratulated on the way in which they have dealt with these extremely difficult issues. They are no longer kicking them into the long grass. However, I also want to endorse the comments made on both sides of the House about what is not in the Bill. I hope that as it passes through the Committee and into its Report stage, we shall see more about fuel poverty and social tariffs, and particularly about rising tariffs, which are one of the most effective means of dealing with fuel poverty and assisting energy conservation. We must also investigate feed-in tariffs, which have proved so successful in Germany.
	I was struck by the earlier comment by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) about the disconnect between Energy Bill and the Climate Change Bill. He raised the question of whether they should have been combined. He asked whether the Bill dealing with the problem should be linked with the Bill offering some of the solutions. I would go further and point out that if we had a Department of Energy and Climate Change, we would have a completely different kind of Bill. Had we had such a Department 10 years ago, we would already have made far greater progress on renewables and energy efficiency. That is something to ponder.
	I also want to point out a superb irony in the context of the nuclear debate, on which I want to focus my remarks. The chief lobbyist for the expansion of nuclear power and the creation of a new generation of nuclear power stations is the chief executive of EDF, a company whose nuclear power stations have been built entirely on the back of the French taxpayer in a state that is doing its utmost to prevent the liberalisation of the market. Yet Mr. de Rivaz comes here and tries to tell our Government that he can now build nuclear power stations without taxpayer subsidy in a completely liberalised market. At the same time, however, our Government—who, like every Government in the world, have no experience whatever of regulating nuclear power stations built or operating without subsidy—are assuring the nuclear lobby that there will be no subsidy in the future.
	We have a kind of twin conspiracy here, whereby the nuclear industry is pretending that it can build these stations without taxpayer subsidy, the Government are pretending that there will be no taxpayer subsidy, but at the same time everybody knows that nuclear can expand only on the back of open-ended taxpayer subsidy. I point that out because I really want to move on from whether we are pro or anti-nuclear, which is no longer the best way to approach the problem.
	The real issue now is whether nuclear is relevant to climate change, whether it is cost-effective and whether it is timely. It seems to me that a number of my colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), have produced extremely logical arguments to explain why nuclear is not relevant to the urgent issue of climate change. It also seems to me that if we accept climate change as the imperative for energy policy, we have to focus far more intensively on the growth of renewables and energy efficiency policies to achieve the cuts that will have to be made by 2020. The Stern report was absolutely unequivocal that if we are to avoid dangerous climate change, deep cuts have to be made before 2020 to set us on the right trajectory to make the longer-term cuts by 2050.
	I commend the nuclear White Paper, as it was an extremely honest document, but the time scale in it shows, as others have pointed out, that there will be no nuclear build until at least 2018—and even then, only if everything goes to plan. In respect of that time scale, therefore, nuclear cannot contribute to the need to have deep CO2 emissions cuts before 2020. Let us also remember that if there is nuclear build before 2020—or, as is hoped, 2018—we are talking only about one nuclear power station. There will not be a new generation of them producing electricity at that time. As the Minister said at Question Time last week, one new 1.2 GW power station will contribute 0.8 per cent. to total energy usage. The fact remains that the contribution of each power station, or even a new generation of 10 new power stations, is marginal in the face of the urgency of the threat of climate change.

Charles Hendry: We have had an excellent debate on the whole range of energy issues, and it has shown the House of Commons at its absolute best. The contributions have been informed, thoughtful, sincere and passionate, and where there have been disagreements, Members have engaged in a good-tempered and constructive manner. I hope that people looking in from outside will see that the debate does us some credit.
	It must be said, however, that not many of the contributions have been on the Bill itself. The first Back-Bench Member to speak about it was my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), who spoke four hours into the debate. Most of the other contributions were about omissions from the Bill. There has been cross-party agreement about many of the omissions, and we are going to set up an omissions trading scheme so that we can push them forward effectively.
	I wish to begin, however, by talking about some of the issues that are addressed in the Bill, and have been covered. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) spoke strongly in favour of carbon capture and storage. He rightly said that we in this country have centuries of coal and we are the most efficient country in Europe at extracting our coal. He also rightly said that we should explore both pre-combustion and post-combustion. Although the Bill makes it possible to provide a system for carbon capture and storage, the main problem with it is that it pushes to one side an exciting new technology. The Government approach is flawed from the start. We will continue to press Ministers to broaden the rules for the pilot scheme, so that Britain can genuinely take a world lead in this area. We have missed out on the project in Peterhead, and it will be a tragedy if we miss out on some of the other important contributions that CCS could make in this country.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire spoke about gas imports and storage. In a very rational speech, he urged us to be sensible about energy security. I agree that we have to see these issues in perspective. At present, more than half of the coal we use is imported, and more than half the imports come from Russia, and nobody ever questions the stability of those imports. Equally, people should recognise that Russia is as keen to sell us its gas as we are to buy it. We have to look more generally at issues of energy security, and my hon. Friend's comments about improving our storage of gas have an important contribution to make in that regard.
	Many Members rightly talked about the roles that renewables can play. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) said that there had been a lack of UK success in this area—that we have not moved as far forward as we should have. However, we have found out this week from the Minister for Energy that the targets have been downgraded. The target is no longer to get 10 per cent. of our energy from renewable sources of electricity by 2010, but that target is now 8 to 10 per cent., and the 20 per cent. figure by 2020 has been reduced to 12 per cent. That is a massive admission that we will not hit the targets, and it proves the cast-iron rule of targets: Ministers put them so far away that some other poor soul has to come along to the Dispatch Box years later to explain why they have not been met.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) made one of the most charming speeches of the debate, and I hope that Tom was listening to it on the television—although if he is watching the parliamentary channel at the age of seven I am worried about him. Nevertheless, it was an enjoyable speech. My hon. Friend explained the complex arguments for and against biofuels, and brought home to us how quickly science evolves in these areas. Two years ago, everyone was telling us that biofuels had a fundamental part to play, but it is now said that they are a potential problem; however, I am absolutely confident that in a few years' time, when cellulosic biofuels are brought in as more use is made of redundant land, they will again be seen as part of the solution.
	The Severn barrage was discussed. The hon. Member for Northavon told us that it was first mentioned in 1849, and we should be aware that there was a Liberal Government then. It is not surprising that that party has been out of power for 100 years if we have had to wait 159 years for further action on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) brought to the House the benefit of his experience of looking at the project at La Rance in France, and we are grateful to him for his contribution. We welcome the Government's approach to the Severn barrage. It is right to examine all the options for the project, as well as the reasons why nothing might be done. That is the right way to proceed, so we support the Government's approach.
	A great deal of discussion has taken place about the role of renewables obligation certificates and feed-in tariffs in encouraging the growth of renewables in this country. I was encouraged by the support given to feed-in tariffs by the right hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). I was particularly struck by the eloquent evidence given by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South about the nightmare an individual citizen faces in claiming ROCs, whereby they almost lose the will to live before they put the form in the post.
	I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, was saying, in his normal thoughtful way, about how hellishly complicated the system of ROCs is. He was concerned that the banding of ROCs might make it more complicated. We are encouraged by the overwhelming support for the banded ROCs approach from right across industry, even from those who will not benefit, such as the British Wind Energy Association.
	However, we should seek to go further. That is why we are so disappointed that the Bill does not include a commitment to open the door to feed-in tariffs. A genuine energy policy should do much more to encourage microgeneration and decentralised power, which have played such an important role in enabling other countries to take a lead over the UK in green energy. Feed-in tariffs could make a fundamental difference to the take-up of these technologies, and again, they have wide support on both sides of the House.
	We are not calling for a prescriptive approach to feed-in tariffs, but we want the Bill to open up the option of their introduction. We shall introduce an amendment to that effect in order specifically to encourage the development of microgeneration and decentralised power. There is a case for running two systems together, perhaps with ROCs for some systems and feed-in tariffs for others, because of the problems of moving from one system to another. However, we shall explore other such issues in Committee.
	Much comment has been made about the need for smart metering. The Chairman of the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee talked about the evidence given to his Committee, as indeed did my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, who is Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They both talked about the mounting volume of evidence in favour of smart metering. I simply fail to understand the Government's lack of imagination in that field, where there is cross-party support for a change of policy.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) said, the way forward is not simply the clip-on device being favoured by Ministers. That will just be a gimmick used for a few weeks and then put away in a cupboard and forgotten. In addition, we must consider the added hazard of people who have no electrical training trying to attach such devices to their electricity supplies. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to do more in that direction. Genuine smart metering will bring massive gains. Such meters would work for both gas and electricity, and perhaps for water too. They would help to tackle fuel poverty, because people would never again have estimated fuel bills that made them think they were consuming less electricity than was the case; they would allow for the measurement of energy produced in the home and exported back to the network; and they would allow for a much more intelligent use of energy, by encouraging people to use electricity out of peak hours, with a range of different tariffs.
	A national roll-out of smart metering is supported by the electricity industry, the regulator, consumer groups and environmental groups, and it is supported on both sides of this House. The Minister should be bolder than he has been so far. If the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight, we shall immediately table an amendment requiring provision for a national roll-out of smart metering within 10 years to be included in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will support such an amendment.
	We have heard discussion about the role of Ofgem, and the Bill should also make provision for that. The Government are proposing some slight tinkering changes, but the time has come for more fundamental reform. The Bill again misses an important opportunity. We will press the Government to amend Ofgem's duties to include a specific reference to encouraging green energy alongside its existing primary duty. The regulator, Alistair Buchanan, and Sir John Mogg, Ofgem's chairman, have done an outstanding job, but just as the energy challenges we face move on and change, so too must Ofgem's remit. We will also explore whether it should have a clearer duty to promote the interests of consumers to assist in tackling fuel poverty.
	The two most contentious issues in the debate were fuel poverty and the nuclear industry. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans was absolutely right to say that Energywatch believes that the Bill has missed an opportunity on fuel poverty. The hon. Member for Northavon pointed out that the Government have failed to meet their objectives. He also pointed out the complications of data sharing. Even within local authorities, data is not shared effectively between departments because of a concern that it might go astray. That cannot be sensible—and because of that fact, people who should be receiving more support are not getting it.
	The hon. Members for Sherwood, for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan), for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and for Nottingham, South all talked about the legal requirement to eradicate fuel poverty by 2010—a target that will be missed. They talked about the importance of support for Warm Front, and the need for measures on social tariffs. It is easy to see why the Government wish to slide over the problem of fuel poverty, as it has been one of the greatest failures of the past few years. Fuel poverty is rising, and there is no prospect that the Government will hit their target of removing all vulnerable households from fuel poverty by 2010. Indeed, the number has doubled from 2 million to 4 million. At a time when VAT receipts from household fuel bills have risen by £400 million, the Government's response has been to cut the budget for Warm Front by £300 million over the next three years. What the Government take with one hand, they take away with the other.
	The Government cannot simply stand back and wash their hands of such a failure of policy. It is a particularly sad day for the Minister for Energy, with his great personal commitment on fuel poverty, because when he had a great opportunity to do something about it he failed to do so. The Bill should be used to make progress on fuel poverty, and if the Government will not table those measures, we will do so in their place.
	Finally, on the nuclear industry, a range of issues have been discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire spoke about the serious problems of the lack of skills in the nuclear installations inspectorate. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) spoke about the need for a mix of primary energy sources. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) talked about how the science of the nuclear industry has moved on. There are some who would have us believe that the world of nuclear technology has not moved on in 50 or 60 years, and that things are the same as they were at the time of Chernobyl. The technology in their cars, fridges and televisions has moved on, but for some reasons they want us to believe that the nuclear industry's technology, alone, has not.
	Those people want to suggest that the UK is the only place in the world where the subject is being debated. There are 34 nuclear power stations under construction and 439 in operation worldwide. Those who are fundamentally opposed to nuclear power have a number of reasons for being so. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) gave his reasons in 36 seconds, which was something of a record. Such people talk in particular about waste. To us, that is the cornerstone of the debate. At a time when the Government have given the go-ahead to a potential new generation of nuclear power stations, it is completely irresponsible simply to start a new consultation process on the disposal of the waste.
	We support the Government in saying that there must be no subsidy for new-build nuclear, but that must mean exactly that—no subsidy. How can a company propose plans to build a reactor if it does not yet know how the waste will be disposed of or how much it will be expected to pay for that to be done safely? After so much uncertainty, the industry is seeking clarity about what is expected and what it will have to pay. That is still missing.
	We will table an amendment saying that the Secretary of State should not permit a nuclear installation to commence operation until he has approved a waste programme and a location for the long-term disposal of the radioactive waste that it produces. To us, that is the cornerstone of the debate.

Malcolm Wicks: When a future historian looks back at the 21st century and tries to review and summarise the great themes and questions that confronted our planet and its people, I believe that two of the issues that have featured so strongly in this debate will be numbered among them. They are climate change and energy security.
	Climate change must be this year's most urgent question. If global warming goes unchecked, thousands of species will perish and millions of people will be at risk from drought, hunger, flooding and forced migration. That is why the Climate Change Bill imposes important targets, such as the proposed reduction of 60 per cent. in CO2 emissions by 2050. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated, that target could be even higher.
	Energy security is no longer simply a technical matter to do with supply, but an increasingly important aspect of national security. I am less relaxed than some Conservative Members about the national security implications. We are in an era of colossal energy demand, when the geopolitics of energy are not reassuring, to put it mildly. That is why we need to be bold.
	We stand today at an energy crossroads, and it is a time for decision. Our indigenous oil and gas industries remain strong and vital to Britain's interests. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, they still meet about two thirds of our energy requirements, but supplies are nevertheless declining by some 9 per cent. a year. Britain has only recently become an importer of gas: about 20 per cent. of our gas needs are imported at present, but that proportion could rise to well over 50 per cent. by 2020. Moreover, almost a fifth—19 per cent.—of our electricity comes from nuclear power today, but that figure could be as low as 6 per cent. by 2020.
	It is clear that a great deal of investment will have to be made in the energy sector, and that is why I say that this is a time for decision. Over the next 10 years, 16 of our power stations, accounting for 30 per cent. of our electricity generation, are due to close. Massive investment is needed to prevent our country from facing an ever-widening energy gap. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram) noted, that will have implications for investment in the network.
	It is no coincidence that three related Bills—on energy, planning and climate change—are currently before Parliament. This Bill puts in place legislation on a number of issues, although the debate has gone far wider, as the shadow Minister recognised. Certainly, the Bill acknowledges the need for new technologies. Carbon capture and storage has been a feature of the debate, and it is absolutely crucial: it is not just any old technology as, whatever some may wish, fossil fuels will be burned around the world for 100 years or more. Indeed, CCS should reduce by some 90 per cent. the amount of CO2 emitted from power stations that burn fossil fuels.
	I am proud that the Government have announced already a demonstration project that makes the UK a world leader in the field of CCS. I am sorry that some people want to talk down that achievement, as though we were being left behind. We are not being left behind: along with only a few other nations, we are leading the development of this new technology that is so important for climate change and for British business. Why is CCS so important? As was mentioned in the debate, the Stern review has estimated that it could contribute up to 28 per cent. of all CO2 reductions by 2050.
	The Bill also includes measures to allow for greater gas storage, which has been acknowledged to be an important aspect of the nation's energy provision and therefore of our national security.
	Renewables feature strongly in the Bill, and it is perfectly proper that the reform of our renewables obligation featured strongly in the debate. The aim is to provide more support for the newer and at present more expensive technologies such as photovoltaics, wave and tidal power, microgeneration and other innovations.
	Of course, the Bill is only part of the wider strategy that we set out in the energy White Paper last May. Indeed, tomorrow sees the publication of the European Commissioner's detailed proposals on ambitious targets for renewable energy and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. However, make no mistake that massive investment and innovation will be required, although we will see what the figure is and we will discuss it.
	In the context of renewable energy, we are clear that further measures will be needed once the final shape of the target is known. The Secretary of State and I listened carefully to the various suggestions that were made, which we will consider very seriously. We have already invested about £500 million between 2002 and 2008 in capital grants and research and development for emerging renewable and low carbon technologies, such as offshore wind, biomass, solar, photovoltaics, and wave and tidal. Wave and tidal is still a new technology, but we could become a world leader in its development, for obvious reasons. By 2010, alongside exemption from the climate change levy, the renewables obligation will be worth about £1 billion each year in support of the renewables industry. Some say that we are not doing very much, but I think that £1 billion a year represents a great deal.
	We are already seeing a dramatic expansion in our renewable generation capacity. For example, we have recently given consent to the world's biggest biomass plant in Port Talbot and to one of the world's largest offshore wind projects: the London Array. We have also set out plans for up to 33 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2020, following the Secretary of State's recent announcement. Today, the Secretary of State announced a feasibility study into a possible Severn barrage. That renewable source could provide some 5 per cent. of the nation's energy, but we need to approach it scientifically and environmentally to assess the benefits and any possible disbenefits.
	Let me address the issue of nuclear waste because it has excited some debate. I am always surprised by those who say that they do not like nuclear and also that it will never be built in Britain. If they are so confident that it will not be built in Britain, I wonder why they are so worried.
	I shall be absolutely clear to the House. The recommendations of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management followed more than two and half years' work and stakeholder engagement. The Government have accepted the committee's recommendations: geological disposal is the best available approach to the long-term management of the UK's higher activity waste, coupled with a robust programme of safe and secure interim storage.
	Let us be clear that quite apart from the question of new build, we have a duty and responsibility. There is a waste; there is a legacy. When I visited Sellafield a year or two ago, I came away with two feelings. I had a sense of real shame that, for several decades, different Governments and Parliaments had neglected the issue, which was a gross act of irresponsibility. However, I also felt proud—albeit not on my own behalf, because I did not initiate this—that this Government were finally tackling this great legacy. We have a duty to do so. The Government believe that it would be technically possible and desirable to dispose of waste from new build in the same facility. We will further explore that through the managing radioactive waste safety process, which is under way. However, the Government believe that nothing has emerged from the managing radioactive waste safety consultation, which closed on 2 November 2007, to change our view about the feasibility of geological disposal.

Malcolm Wicks: I do not confirm that; indeed, I deny it. By a full share we mean 100 per cent.—the absolute cost that is produced. That is what we mean by the share. Perhaps there is a linguistic problem for Liberal Democrat Members, but I can satisfy even the Liberal party in Committee.
	I have mentioned energy security and climate change, but there is a third important issue to discuss: fuel poverty. While we talk about global warming, we have a duty to make sure that our elders and betters and other vulnerable people are warm in their homes. That is why the Government have set a target. I am not complacent, but I am proud of what we have done. The winter fuel payments, totalling £2 billion a year, is again helping some 12 million people this winter.
	May I say to the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), with as much politeness as I can muster at this hour, that I cannot take seriously all this concern about fuel poverty on the part of Tory Members? I find it difficult to do so.  [Interruption.] I will tell the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) why: when we took office— [Interruption.] Hon. Members say that I am doing well, but I will do even better now: when we took office 10 years ago, the Conservative Government expected a single elderly woman to live on £69 a week in income support. We introduced pension credit and winter fuel payments, and our energy efficiency programme has helped 2 million people with loft insulation, heating appliances and new boilers. I am proud of that, but I repeat that I am not complacent, because rising energy prices are now hurting the vulnerable. I recognise that people are worried about that. That is why we have urged companies to improve their social tariffs, and why the Secretary of State has said that if companies do not do the right thing, we will consider legislation. This is an important Bill and the issues at stake—energy security and global warming—are significant. We need a clean, diverse energy policy to address them. I commend the Bill to the House.
	  Question put and agreed to.
	  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

John Heppell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this debate to take place. It is a very important subject and we have constituents in every constituency who will be concerned about it.
	Let me start by saying that I do not see the Government as the bogeyman in this respect. I have not turned into one of the awkward squad—I am just trying to be a critical friend. The Government have genuinely tried to improve a bad situation, but because of unforeseen consequences we have ended up in a position that nobody wants to be in, including the Government. The situation is unsatisfactory, and I think that we all want to try to resolve it.
	The ability to retire on ill health grounds in the public sector has been badly abused in the past, as anybody who has been involved in the public sector would recognise. A few years ago, it was always the aspiration of people of my generation to retire early. I remember thinking, "Will I be gone at 55 or 60?" People perceived it as almost a public service to retire early because plenty of others wanted their job and it was seen as making way for a younger man to take over. A lot of that has changed. What was wrong was that many people, in lots of different areas, took early retirement and then reappeared—they were suddenly fit again and working in the private sector, as consultants, or whatever.
	I served on the county council's head teachers appointment committee, although I am not sure why I was qualified to do so, and we picked every head teacher and deputy head teacher in the whole of Nottinghamshire. We may not have done a good job; I am sure that the current system is a lot better. We also approved early retirement on ill health grounds. I realised that if there was anyone whom the authority considered dead wood, they were given early retirement. If someone was a good head teacher, there was no way that we were going to let them retire—they had to stay on. It was almost an incentive for people to be bad, and a reward for incompetence in some cases. That sort of abuse happened across the whole system, and the Government, given their responsibility for taxpayers, needed to deal with it.
	Before 2004, I was very sceptical about the fire service pension scheme, but for somewhat different reasons. The fire service has a different remit and a different sort of employment, because people are at risk. However, the situation seemed mad to me, and I had friends that had to retire because of what was a very minor disability as far as I was concerned—their hearing or their sight was not quite as good as it was. Because of something very minor, all of a sudden they were forced to retire from a job, and I saw that as crazy. There was no discretion. If a person could not qualify as someone who fought fires, they were gone. That was not good for the individuals concerned; they lost their jobs. They might have found other jobs, but they wanted to stay in the fire service and could not.
	The situation was not good for the fire service. Trained men who had been expensively trained—not just to carry out specific firefighting tasks—were moved out and new people had to be trained. It was bad for the taxpayers, too, because they paid the bill for all the early retirements. So I think that the Government did the right thing in saying, "We've got to do something about this. We have to tackle this problem." The Government did something about it through the Firemen's Pension Scheme (Amendment) Order 2004, which effectively changed things for the better. I thought that the Government's intentions were honourable and that the amendment made a considerable difference. It almost certainly reduced the amount of early retirement that was happening at that time.
	There was already a changing trend of early retirement in the fire service. The 2004 order allowed firefighters to remain part of the pension scheme if they were not able to fight fires but could take on other firefighters duties. Where the fire service could fit people who were already well trained into jobs talking to the public about fire safety, inspections and so on, it could keep them on. The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 gave further impetus to that process of taking people on.
	I suspect that Nottinghamshire county council and Nottinghamshire fire authority are not untypical. Three quarters of the fire service staff are on operational duties, and only a quarter are on non-operational duties, so the pool of jobs available to people not considered fit enough to take on operational duties is reduced. It is more difficult than the situation in an ordinary firm where it is possible to say, "We can fit these people into jobs." There are fewer jobs to fit them into—only a quarter of all available jobs. We must remember, too, that they should be put into real vacancies. I would not want bogus jobs to be created that let people carry on pottering around—I hope that no one would, including the Government. Such a situation would be disgraceful for the service, the taxpayer and the people who were given those jobs. We want to make sure that people have real jobs. We have to accept that it was not always easy to fit someone into a job.
	I was quite content with that situation. There was a bit of leeway, and most chief fire officers were trying to ensure that people were put into jobs if there some were available. If that process ultimately failed, people could still retire on the grounds of ill health, after going through the rigorous examination to determine whether they were available for operational duties. That situation changed in 2006, and this is where my criticism of what happened comes for the Government.
	In 2006, the Government issued the firefighters pension scheme circular 11/2006, which changed the definition of "regular firefighter". I recognise that this will be difficult for people. I will not be able to explain to everyone what a retained firefighter or a regular firefighter is; I am not going to sort out the complexity of the matter tonight. However, the change meant that when people were being tested, the definition of "a regular firefighter" had changed. In the past, people who were deemed unfit for the job were unfit for firefighting. The definition was changed effectively to say that a person is unfit if
	"he is permanently disabled for firefighting and for performing other duties appropriate to the role."
	That rider does not seem like much but it has caused major changes.
	Soon after that, in January 2007, the Firefighters Pension Committee challenged the Government about the circular. It stated that
	"the guidance given in circular 11/2006 clarified DCLG's view of the pension scheme. It could not be an interpretation of the scheme. The decision of whether or not to retire a member on an ill-health pension remained with the FRA. The question of whether a member who does not qualify for ill-health retirement can be dismissed if no suitable job is available was an employment matter and not for the pension scheme."

John Heppell: I thought, for a moment, that the hon. Gentleman would talk me out!
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a serious problem with retained firemen. There is a case in my constituency of a retained firefighter who is in the position that he outlined.
	Firefighters are being judged on whether they are fit to do any job that a firefighter does, not only the firefighting role. If he can fulfil any one other task, he is deemed fit. It is almost impossible to be declared unfit for the job.
	Four firefighters died at Atherstone in Warwickshire. Let us suppose that they had not died but had been injured. Let us suppose that others who were at that fire were so traumatised by what they saw that they could not work again; that someone was hurt saving someone else's life, or that someone was injured while protecting the public or in an act of heroism, and then, because of circumstances in the local fire service, there were no vacancies that such people could fill. The only thing that a chief fire officer can do is sack them.
	It is terrible that those whom we expect to put their lives on the line every day should, if they are injured as a result of that, be told, "I'm sorry, but there's nothing we can do." I am seeking a little flexibility to tackle such circumstances. It is right that chief fire officers are charged with a duty—indeed, I believe that it should be strengthened—of finding a job for anybody who is hurt through fighting a fire or an assault by a member of the public. We keep statistics on that and, if it was not happening, I would want to ask the relevant fire service for the reason. However, in circumstances in which there is no job, do we genuinely want to sack people? I do not believe that we do. I do not believe that the Government want to do that. One firefighter told me, "I can't be put down as retiring on ill health as long as I can pick up the phone." There is something wrong if we cannot deal with that.
	Why do not we forget about the 2004 and the 2006 guidance? Why do we not forget about the guidance that we gave to the independent qualified medical practitioners, which said that as long as somebody can do any of the things that a firefighter can do, they will be deemed fit for work? Why do we not forget about all that and think about how we can go forward?
	I will give the Minister a suggestion. I know that these things are complicated and will not be as easy as I describe, but when somebody is deemed unfit to fight fires by an independent qualified medical practitioner rather than by a GP—in the old days, people used to complain that they had a bad back and got early retirement—the fire services have a duty to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act and should ensure that they use every method available to find that person a job in a service. But if that fails, why cannot people in the service look elsewhere? When we are talking about only 300 people in Nottinghamshire fire service, it is difficult to find someone a job; but when we are talking about 20,000 people in Nottinghamshire county council's employment, it is much easier to find a job for somebody. We need to think out of the box and look at how we guarantee those people jobs.
	However, the bottom line is that when we cannot find a person a job, whichever way we have tried, and when we have applied the 2005 Act, chief fire officers should have the ability to let them be rewarded properly for what they have done for us.